## Facts

- In 1923, Switzerland and Liechtenstein concluded a treaty under which Switzerland would regulate the entry of foreign nationals at the Swiss–Liechtenstein frontier.
- In 1963, Switzerland and Liechtenstein entered a further agreement providing that Swiss “prohibitions of entry” imposed on foreigners would automatically take effect in Liechtenstein.
- The applicants, X. and Y., were two foreign nationals (one German and one Austrian).
- Swiss authorities imposed measures prohibiting the applicants’ entry, and Swiss police refused them entry at the Liechtenstein border; because of the bilateral arrangements, the Swiss measures also prevented entry into Liechtenstein.
- Liechtenstein was not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights at the relevant time, while Switzerland was.
- The applicants lodged applications (Nos. 7289/75 and 7349/76) with the European Commission of Human Rights against Switzerland.
- They alleged that the entry prohibition affected their private and family relationships in Liechtenstein and also prevented one applicant from consulting a particular medical specialist there.
- They further complained about the procedures used in the Swiss administrative process for imposing or maintaining the entry prohibition.
- The Commission addressed admissibility, including attribution/jurisdiction and whether the complaints fell within the Convention provisions relied upon.

## Issues

1. Whether Switzerland’s responsibility under Article 1 of the Convention could be engaged where Swiss authorities’ entry measures, by agreement, produced automatic legal effects in non-Contracting Liechtenstein.
2. Whether refusing entry to Liechtenstein in order to maintain personal relationships and to consult a particular doctor could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, or whether the complaint belonged (if at all) under Article 8.
3. Whether Article 6(1) applied to Swiss administrative proceedings concerning a prohibition of entry.
4. Under Article 8, what kinds of relationships amounted to “family life,” including (a) a father’s relationship with illegitimate children, and (b) extra-marital relationships without stable cohabitation.
5. Whether requiring meetings “some distance” from the family residence amounted to an interference with family life where the family ties were already relatively loose.
6. Whether the applications were abusive or pointless under Article 27(2) because any practical result could be blocked by Liechtenstein’s actions as a non-Contracting State.
7. Whether the Convention guarantees a right to choose a particular medical specialist.

## Decision

- The Commission held that a Contracting State’s responsibility may be engaged by acts of its authorities that produce effects outside its territory; on the facts, the Swiss entry measure fell within Switzerland’s “jurisdiction” for Article 1 purposes, despite the effects in Liechtenstein.
- The Commission rejected the Article 3 characterization: refusal of entry to pursue family contacts or consult a doctor did not, on these facts, amount to inhuman treatment, particularly where appropriate medical treatment could be obtained elsewhere; the complaint was to be assessed, if at all, under Article 8 rather than Article 3.
- The Commission held Article 6(1) was not applicable to administrative proceedings on prohibition of entry and treated the fair-hearing complaint as incompatible with the Convention on that ground.
- On Article 8, the Commission accepted that a father’s relationship with his illegitimate children falls within “family life.”
- The Commission found that extra-marital relations not accompanied by a permanent common life did not fall within “family life” for Article 8 purposes.
- The Commission indicated that, where family relations were already relatively loose, an obligation to meet family members at some distance from their residence did not amount to an interference with family life.
- The Commission held the applications were not abusive merely because, even if the applicants succeeded against Switzerland, the outcome sought could be impeded by Liechtenstein’s actions as a non-Contracting State.
- The Commission stated that the Convention does not, as such, guarantee a right to free choice of medical assistance or a particular medical specialist.

## Legal Principles

- A State’s Article 1 responsibility can arise from acts of its authorities that have legal effects outside the State’s territory, including effects created through bilateral arrangements.
- Complaints about entry restrictions affecting personal and family relationships are generally examined under Article 8, not Article 3, unless the alleged suffering reaches the high Article 3 threshold.
- Article 6(1) does not apply to administrative proceedings imposing or maintaining an entry prohibition (no “civil rights and obligations” determination or “criminal charge” for Article 6 purposes in this context).
- For Article 8, a father’s relationship with illegitimate children may constitute “family life,” while extra-marital relationships without permanent common life may fall outside that notion.
- Article 8 does not treat every inconvenience to contact as an “interference”; when ties are relatively loose, requiring meetings away from the home area may not engage Article 8.
- An application is not abusive under Article 27(2) merely because the practical benefit sought could be frustrated by a non-Contracting State’s independent actions.
- The Convention contains no standalone right to choose a preferred medical specialist.

## Conclusion

In this admissibility decision, the European Commission of Human Rights concluded that Switzerland could be responsible under Article 1 for entry prohibitions imposed by Swiss authorities that, by agreement, automatically took effect in Liechtenstein; it rejected an Article 3 framing, held Article 6(1) inapplicable to entry-ban administration, clarified the limits of “family life” under Article 8 (including recognition of father–illegitimate child ties but not non-cohabiting extra-marital relationships), and ruled that the application was not abusive solely because Liechtenstein might block the practical result sought.


X. & Y. v. Switzerland, 1977 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. (Eur. Comm’n H.R.) 372, 402-406 (1977)