Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T21:31:31.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Court of Human Rights: Sabeh El Leil v. France

Sabeh El Leil v. France (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gilles Cuniberti
Gilles Cuniberti*
Affiliation:
James S. Carpentier Visiting Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, and Professor of Private International Law, University of Luxembourg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights website (visited Jan. 26, 2012) http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/hudoc.

1 Sabeh el Leil v. France, App. No. 34869/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 29, 2011).

2 European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222.

3 Cudak v. Lithuania, App. No. 15869/02 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 23, 2010).

4 Fogarty v. United Kingdom, App. No. 37112/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21, 2001); McElhinney v. Ireland, App. No. 31253/96 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21, 2001); Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21, 2001).

5 See, e.g., Cudak, ¶ 57; Al-Adsani, ¶ 54.

6 International Law Commission [ILC], Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (1991), 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 13 (1991), available at http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/4_1_ 1991.pdf.

7 Fogarty, ¶ 37. See also McElhinney, ¶ 38.

8 See, e.g., Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 325 (2003).

9 Cudak, ¶ 69.

10 Id. ¶ 71.

11 Id. ¶ 72.

12 Id. ¶¶ 70, 74.

13 See id. ¶ 62.

14 See id. ¶ 64.

15 See id. ¶ 67. The Court, however, had referred to the margin of appreciation of France at the beginning of its opinion, ¶ 47.

16 See, e.g., Ruiz Torija v. Spain, (1994) 19 Eur. Ct. H.R. 553, ¶ 29; Higgins v. France, 1998-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 60, ¶ 42.

17 Hornsby v. Greece, App. No. 25701/94 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 19, 1997).