## Facts

- A Moroccan individual and two Moroccan associations complained about publication in Denmark of twelve cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad, including an image depicting a bomb in his turban.
- Danish Muslim organizations reported the newspaper to police, alleging violations of Danish criminal provisions addressing blasphemy and discriminatory insults.
- Danish prosecutorial authorities declined to bring criminal charges; a higher prosecutorial review upheld the refusal.
- Civil claims against the newspaper in Denmark were also unsuccessful.
- The Moroccan applicants, who had not been in Denmark, alleged Denmark’s refusal to prosecute failed to protect their religious rights and reflected religious discrimination, invoking Convention provisions on religion, expression, non-discrimination, and abuse of rights.
- The application reached the European Court of Human Rights for an admissibility determination.

## Issues

1. Whether Moroccan nationals and Morocco-based associations, alleging harm from a Danish publication and Denmark’s decision not to prosecute, were “within [Denmark’s] jurisdiction” under Article 1 of the Convention.
2. If Article 1 jurisdiction was absent, whether the Court had competence to examine the asserted violations under Articles 9 and 14, and Articles 10 and 17.

## Decision

- The Court declared the application inadmissible.
- The applicants were not within Denmark’s jurisdiction under Article 1.
- Because jurisdiction was lacking, the Court did not examine the merits of the complaints under Articles 9, 10, 14, or 17.

## Legal Principles

- Article 1 jurisdiction is primarily territorial; a Contracting State’s obligations normally extend to persons within its territory.
- Extraterritorial jurisdiction exists only in limited, recognized situations, including effective control over an area outside the State’s territory or authority and control exercised by State agents over individuals abroad.
- Cross-border effects of conduct occurring within a State, without a recognized basis of extraterritorial jurisdiction, do not place foreign persons abroad within that State’s Article 1 jurisdiction.
- Absent Article 1 jurisdiction, the Court lacks competence ratione personae/ratioe loci to assess alleged substantive Convention violations.

## Conclusion

The Court dismissed the application at the threshold because the Moroccan applicants, located outside Denmark and not subject to Danish authority or control, were not within Denmark’s Article 1 jurisdiction, foreclosing review of the substantive Convention claims.


Ben El Mahi & Others v. Den., App. No. 5853/06 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 11, 2006)