## Facts

- In May 2009, twenty-four Somali and Eritrean migrants departed Libya by boat as part of a group of about 200 people attempting to reach Italy.
- On May 6, 2009, about 35 nautical miles south of Lampedusa (within the Maltese search-and-rescue region), Italian Coastguard and Guardia di Finanza vessels intercepted the boats.
- Migrants, including the applicants, were transferred onto Italian military vessels and kept under Italian authority during the operation.
- The applicants alleged Italian personnel did not identify them, did not assess protection needs, did not inform them of their destination, and confiscated personal effects including identity documents.
- After roughly ten hours, the applicants were taken to Tripoli and handed over to Libyan authorities; applicants stated they objected but were forced to disembark.
- The return operation was carried out within a broader Italy–Libya cooperation policy aimed at preventing irregular migration.
- The applicants alleged that in Libya they faced arbitrary detention, violent and degrading conditions, and a risk of removal to Somalia or Eritrea, where they feared persecution and ill-treatment.
- UNHCR later granted refugee status to fourteen applicants in Tripoli between June and October 2009.

## Issues

1. Whether Italy exercised jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights over migrants intercepted on the high seas and held on Italian vessels.
2. Whether returning the applicants to Libya exposed them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, including onward removal to Somalia or Eritrea, in breach of Article 3.
3. Whether the operation constituted collective expulsion prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 due to the absence of individualized examination.
4. Whether Italy provided an effective remedy, as required by Article 13, to challenge the transfer and prevent removal where Article 3 and Protocol No. 4 rights were at stake.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held the applicants were within Italy’s jurisdiction because Italy exercised continuous and exclusive control over them while they were on Italian military vessels.
- The court found a violation of Article 3 because Italy exposed the applicants to a real risk of ill-treatment in Libya and a real risk of onward removal to Somalia or Eritrea without any assessment of protection needs.
- The court found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 because the return was carried out as a single measure affecting the group without reasonable and objective examination of each individual case.
- The court found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 because the applicants lacked a practical, accessible remedy with suspensive effect to challenge the transfer.
- The court awarded monetary compensation to each applicant and costs.

## Legal Principles

- A state’s human-rights obligations apply extraterritorially where it exercises de jure and de facto authority and control over individuals, including on board its vessels on the high seas.
- Article 3 prohibits exposing a person to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment through removal, including where there is a real risk of onward removal (“chain refoulement”) to places of such harm.
- Maritime interception cannot be used to avoid Convention duties; the maritime setting does not permit removal operations outside legal constraints.
- “Collective expulsion” includes measures compelling a group of non-citizens to leave without individualized examination; it applies to measures that are expulsion in substance, including operations carried out beyond territorial waters.
- For arguable Article 3 claims in removal contexts, Article 13 requires an effective remedy that is practical and accessible and generally must have automatic suspensive effect.

## Conclusion

The court held that Italy’s high-seas interception and return of migrants to Libya, carried out without individual assessment or access to a suspensive remedy, engaged Italy’s jurisdiction and violated the prohibitions on refoulement, collective expulsion, and denial of an effective remedy.


Hirsi Jamaa & Others v. Italy, App. No. 27765/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2012)