## Facts

- During NATO’s 1999 air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), a missile struck the Radio Televizije Srbije (RTS) building in central Belgrade on April 23, 1999.
- The attack killed 16 civilians and seriously injured 16 others; several applicants’ close relatives were among those killed, and one applicant was injured.
- Six FRY nationals applied against 17 Convention States participating in NATO operations, alleging the strike unlawfully targeted a civilian facility.
- The applicants alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 2 (right to life), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 13 (effective remedy).
- The case reached the Grand Chamber and was decided at the admissibility stage, focusing on whether the applicants were within the respondent States’ jurisdiction under Article 1.

## Issues

1. Whether persons killed or injured in Belgrade by a missile launched in a NATO operation were “within the jurisdiction” of the respondent States under Article 1 of the Convention.
2. Whether, absent Article 1 jurisdiction, the Court could examine alleged violations of Articles 2, 10, and 13.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber declared the application inadmissible ratione personae because the applicants and their relatives were not within the respondent States’ Article 1 jurisdiction at the time of the strike.
- The Court treated Convention jurisdiction as primarily territorial, with extraterritorial jurisdiction recognized only in exceptional circumstances requiring specific justification.
- The Court found no basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction because the respondent States did not exercise effective control over FRY territory (or the relevant area in Belgrade) and did not exercise comparable authority over the victims.
- The Court rejected jurisdiction based solely on the causal effects of an extraterritorial use of force (a “cause-and-effect” theory).
- Because Article 1 jurisdiction was lacking, the Court did not reach the merits of the Articles 2, 10, or 13 complaints.

## Legal Principles

- Article 1 “jurisdiction” under the Convention is ordinarily territorial; extraterritorial application is exceptional and requires special justification in the circumstances.
- Extraterritorial jurisdiction may arise where a contracting State, as a result of military action, exercises effective control over an area outside its national territory, triggering obligations to secure Convention rights there.
- Prior case types such as removal/extradition decisions concern acts taken within the State’s own territory over persons already within its jurisdiction and do not, by themselves, establish general extraterritorial jurisdiction for overseas military operations.
- Jurisdiction is not established merely because State agents’ conduct outside the State’s territory produces harmful effects abroad; impact alone does not bring foreign victims within Article 1.
- Where Article 1 jurisdiction is absent, substantive Convention rights (including Articles 2, 10, and 13) are not engaged against the respondent States.

## Conclusion

The Court dismissed the application at the admissibility stage, holding that the NATO airstrike in Belgrade did not bring the victims within the respondent States’ Article 1 jurisdiction; without jurisdiction, the alleged Convention violations could not be examined on the merits.


Banković v. Belgium, App. No. 52207/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2001)