## Facts

- Youssef Moustafa Nada, an Italian and Egyptian national, lived in Campione d’Italia, a small Italian enclave geographically surrounded by Switzerland; leaving the enclave required transit through Swiss territory.
- The UN Security Council created a counterterrorism sanctions regime and a consolidated list of targeted persons maintained by a UN Sanctions Committee.
- In 2001, Nada was added to the UN list and then to Switzerland’s implementing measures under a domestic ordinance.
- After the UN introduced a travel ban for listed persons, Switzerland amended its ordinance to bar listed persons from entering or transiting Switzerland.
- The travel ban effectively confined Nada to the enclave for several years, limiting access to medical care, legal proceedings, and contact with family and friends.
- In 2003, Swiss authorities revoked Nada’s special border-crossing permit; in 2004, Switzerland denied his request to transit Switzerland for medical treatment and legal matters.
- In 2005, Swiss federal prosecutors closed a criminal investigation against Nada as unfounded, but Switzerland maintained it could not remove him from the domestic list while he remained listed by the UN.
- In September 2009, Nada was removed from the UN list, and Switzerland amended its ordinance accordingly.
- Nada alleged violations of ECHR Articles 3, 5, 8, 9, and 13 based on the travel ban’s effects and the absence of an effective remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether Switzerland’s implementation of UN sanctions, including a travel/transit ban, was attributable to Switzerland and within its jurisdiction under ECHR Article 1.
2. Whether the travel/transit ban and resulting confinement interfered with and violated ECHR Article 8, including private life, family life, professional life, and reputation.
3. Whether Switzerland provided an effective remedy under ECHR Article 13 for the Article 8 complaint.
4. Whether the facts established violations of ECHR Articles 3, 5, or 9.
5. How Switzerland’s obligations under UN Security Council resolutions should be reconciled with its obligations under the Convention.

## Decision

- The Court held the challenged acts and omissions were attributable to Switzerland and occurred within Switzerland’s jurisdiction for purposes of ECHR Article 1.
- The Court found a violation of ECHR Article 8 because the long-term travel/transit ban, given the enclave’s geography, imposed a severe and disproportionate interference with Nada’s private and family life.
- The Court found a violation of ECHR Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 because no domestic process allowed meaningful review of the substance and proportionality of the measures or relief from their effects.
- The Court found no violation (or rejected/declared inadmissible) Nada’s complaints under ECHR Articles 3, 5, and 9.

## Legal Principles

- A state remains responsible under the Convention for domestic measures implementing binding UN Security Council resolutions; the implementation is attributable to the state even if the listing originates at the UN level.
- Interferences with Article 8 rights must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate in light of the individual’s circumstances and the actual severity of the measures’ effects.
- In addressing potentially competing international obligations, states must, so far as possible, implement UN obligations in a manner compatible with Convention rights through harmonized interpretation rather than treating UN obligations as automatically displacing Convention guarantees.
- Proportionality review in sanctions cases includes assessing whether authorities used available means to reduce harm (such as exemptions or waivers) and took reasonable steps to facilitate delisting where appropriate.
- Article 13 requires an accessible and effective remedy enabling a competent national authority to examine the substance of a Convention complaint and provide appropriate relief; a remedy is inadequate where authorities treat themselves as unable to review or mitigate measures affecting Convention rights.

## Conclusion

The Court held Switzerland responsible for how it implemented UN travel-ban sanctions and found that applying the transit ban to a resident of a Swiss-surrounded enclave, without sufficient mitigation and without an effective remedy, violated Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.


Nada v. Switzerland, 2012-II Eur. Ct. H.R. 1691 (Grand Chamber 2012)