CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 1999

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 12 November 1999 Yonghong v. Portugal (dec.) - 50887/99 Decision 25.11.1999 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-3-a Ratione loci Extradition to China of a Chinese national arrested in Macao: inadmissible Article 56 Territorial application Extradition to China of a Chinese national arrested in Macao: inadmissible Macao was a Chinese territory that was under Portuguese administration until 20 December 1999, when it was to revert to China. The Macao courts have had exclusive jurisdiction in the territory since June 1999. The applicant, a Chinese national who was arrested in Macao, faced extradition to China. He was accused of fraud and submitted that that offence exposed him to capital punishment in his country. The Macao Supreme Court decided to authorise extradition after receiving an assurance from the Chinese authorities that he would not be sentenced to life imprisonment or to capital punishment. The applicant’s appeal to the full Macao Supreme Court was dismissed. Inadmissible under Articles 3 and 6 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 6. The concept of “jurisdiction” in Article 1 of the Convention had to be construed in the light of Article 56. Portugal had not made a declaration under Article 56 extending the Convention to Macao. Owing to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Macao courts, no Portuguese court had jurisdiction in the case. The Court therefore had to hold that it had no jurisdiction (see, mutatis mutandis , the decision of the Commission of 12 March 1990, DR 65, p.   330). No jurisdiction rationae loci .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes