CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary June 2025 S.S. and Others v. Italy (dec.) - 21660/18 Decision 20.5.2025 [Section I] Article 1 Jurisdiction of States Lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction of Italy over rescue operations in respect of irregular migrants shipwrecked on high seas off Libyan coast Facts – The Rome Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) received a distress signal from a vessel foundering on the high seas, which had set out from the Libyan coast and was transporting irregular migrants of Nigerian and Ghanaian nationality. In accordance with the rules laid down by the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (“the SAR Convention”), the Rome MRCC informed the Tripoli Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) and requested all nearby vessels to intervene and rescue the survivors. The Libyan ship Ras   Jadir , which had arrived first at the scene, took control of the rescue operations, following which two of the seventeen applicants were taken aboard the Ras Jadir and sent back to Libya. The other applicants boarded the Dutch ship SW3 and were transported to Italy. The applicants argued that the events fell within Italy’s jurisdiction within the meaning of Article   1 of the Convention. They alleged violations of Articles   2, 3, 4 and   13 of the Convention and of Article   4 of Protocol No.   4. Law – Article   1: In order to establish whether there were circumstances warranting the conclusion that a State had exercised jurisdiction extraterritorially, the Court had to determine whether, at the material time, there had been any form of effective control by that State over the area in question and/or whether the authorities of the State in question had exercised power or control over the applicants. (1) Effective control over the area in question – The present case was in no way comparable to those in which the Court had previously recognised the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction ratione loci . In those cases the Contracting States had exercised effective control over an area outside their national territory as a result of military action – lawful or otherwise – either directly, by means of the State’s armed forces or through a subordinate local administration. There was nothing to suggest that the presence of the Italian naval forces or the scale of their operations at the material time had been such that the maritime area in question could be regarded as having de facto been under the effective control of the Italian State. Furthermore, the financial and technical support provided by Italy to the Libyan State under bilateral agreements was not such as to lead the Court to presume that the Libyan authorities were dependent on Italy to such a degree that the international maritime area off the Libyan coast was under the effective control and decisive influence of Italy. Nor did the Court find any evidence to suggest that, as a result of those bilateral agreements, Italy had taken over Libya’s public-authority powers in immigration matters by virtue of a form of consent, invitation or acquiescence on the part of the Libyan Government. Thus, it could not be concluded that the area in which the applicants had been intercepted – and more generally the international waters of the Central Mediterranean Sea – had been under the effective control of Italy such that its jurisdiction ratione loci could be established in the present case. (2) State agent authority and control – None of the ships involved in the applicants’ rescue had been flying the Italian flag or had been under the de facto control of Italian agents. In this regard, the present case differed from those in which the Court had found that a State’s jurisdiction could be engaged in respect of events that had taken place on the high seas on the grounds that the applicants had been under the full and exclusive control, de jure or at least de facto , of agents of the respondent State. The captain and crew of the Libyan vessel had acted autonomously, refusing to respond to the calls sent by the other vessels at the scene and by the Italian Navy helicopter for the purpose of coordinating the rescue manoeuvres. Moreover, there was nothing to suggest that the Rome MRCC officers had had control over the crew of the Ras   Jadir or had been in a position to influence their conduct in any way. The procedure with a view to the applicants’ rescue had been initiated in accordance with the provisions of international maritime law relating to the search for and rescue of persons in distress at sea. As the recipient of the distress call, the Rome MRCC had been under the obligation to launch the rescue operations, by raising the alert, and to coordinate them with the rescue coordination centres of the other coastal States. Such a procedure could not be compared to the proceedings which had created a jurisdictional link between the applicants and the respondent State in the Güzelyurtlu and Others v.   Cyprus and Turkey   [GC] case. Those had been criminal proceedings initiated by the Turkish authorities (controlling the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”) and had concerned Turkey’s procedural obligations under Article   2 of the Convention, which had also been the subject of the complaint before the Court. Moreover, in order to trigger a jurisdictional link, proceedings had to relate to the alleged violation complained of before the Court and have a direct impact on whether the substantive complaints raised before it fell under the jurisdiction of the respondent State within the meaning of Article   1 of the Convention. In the light of the above considerations, the mere fact that the search and rescue procedure had been initiated by the Rome MRCC could not have resulted in bringing the applicants under the jurisdiction of the Italian State. To conclude otherwise could, moreover, amount to dissuading States from acting on the basis of their international obligations in connection with the rescue persons in distress at sea, since States would then be required, on that basis alone, to secure the Convention rights to such persons, even where the latter had no connection to them and were not under their effective “control”. Acts performed by Contracting States outside their territory, or producing effects outside their territory, could constitute an exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article   1 only in exceptional cases. The Court had thus consistently rejected the argument that the mere fact of a decision’s being taken at national level which had an impact on the situation of a person abroad could in itself establish jurisdiction of the State concerned over the person in question. This concerned not only decisions taken by the authorities but also claims that the State was capable of taking such a decision or action impacting the applicant’s situation abroad. It followed from all these considerations that Italy’s extraterritorial jurisdiction ratione personae was not engaged in the present case either. Consequently, the applicants could not validly argue that the circumstances of the case were such as to bring them within Italy’s jurisdiction. (3) Conclusion – Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the applicants had not been under the jurisdiction of Italy within the meaning of Article   1 of the Convention in respect of the facts complained of under Articles   2, 3 and 4 of the Convention and Article   4 of Protocol No.   4. Consequently, the same finding had to be reached as to the complaint under Article   13. Conclusion : inadmissible (jurisdiction ratione loci and ratione personae ). (See Ilaşcu and Others v.   Moldova and Russia [GC], 48787/99, 8   July 2004, Legal Summary ; Medvedyev and Others v.   France [GC], 3394/03, 29   March 2010, Legal Summary ; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v.   Italy [GC], 27765/09, 23   February 2012, Legal Summary ; Catan and Others v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], 43370/04 et al., 19   October 2012, Legal Summary ; Chiragov and Others v.   Armenia [GC], 13216/05, 16   June 2015, Legal Summary ; Güzelyurtlu and Others v.   Cyprus and Turkey [GC], 36925/07, 29   January 2019, Legal Summary ; Ukraine v.   Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], 20958/14 and 38334/18, 16   December 2020, Legal Summary ; Georgia v.   Russia (II) [GC], 38263/08, 21   January 2021, Legal Summary ; H.F. and Others v.   France [GC], 24384/19 and 44234/20, 14   September 2022, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .