Quick answer
In Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (Application no. 27765/09, Grand Chamber judgment of 23 February 2012), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that Italy’s interception of migrants on the high seas and their return to Libya breached Article 3 (twice), Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) and Article 13. The case confirmed that a State’s Convention obligations can apply extraterritorially on board its ships.
Background and facts
The applicants were Somali and Eritrean nationals who, in 2009, were part of a group intercepted at sea by Italian revenue-police and coastguard vessels in international waters and transferred back to Tripoli under a bilateral arrangement with Libya. They were handed over to the Libyan authorities without any examination of their individual situations or asylum needs. They complained that they had been exposed to ill-treatment in Libya and to the risk of repatriation to Somalia and Eritrea.
The Court’s reasoning
Jurisdiction on the high seas
The Court held that, from the moment the applicants boarded the Italian vessels, they were under the continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities. They were therefore within Italy’s jurisdiction under Article 1, even though the events occurred in international waters.
Two Article 3 violations and collective expulsion
The Court found a violation of Article 3 because the applicants were exposed to the risk of ill-treatment in Libya, and a further violation because they were exposed to the risk of arbitrary repatriation from Libya to Somalia and Eritrea (indirect refoulement). It also held, for the first time in the context of interception at sea, that the removal amounted to a collective expulsion contrary to Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, because there was no individual examination of each person’s situation. The absence of any effective remedy with suspensive effect breached Article 13.
The judgment
The Grand Chamber held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 3, a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and a violation of Article 13 taken together with those provisions.
Why this case matters
Hirsi Jamaa is the landmark judgment on pushbacks and border control at sea. It confirms that States cannot avoid their non-refoulement obligations by acting outside their land territory, that collective expulsion is prohibited even in maritime interception, and that an effective remedy with suspensive effect must be available. It is central to migration and asylum litigation across Europe.
What this means for applicants
- Jurisdiction can follow the flag. People under the control of a State’s agents — including on its ships in international waters — are within its jurisdiction.
- Indirect refoulement is prohibited. Sending someone to a country from which they may be sent on to a place of danger can breach Article 3.
- Collective expulsion is banned. Removal without an individual examination of each person breaches Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.
- A suspensive remedy is required. There must be an effective remedy capable of halting removal.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy decide?
That intercepting migrants at sea and returning them to Libya without examining their situations breached Article 3 (twice), Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (collective expulsion) and Article 13.
Does the Convention apply outside a State’s territory?
Yes. Once the applicants were on board the Italian ships they were under Italy’s control and within its jurisdiction, even in international waters.
What is indirect refoulement?
Removing a person to a country from which they face being sent on to a place where they risk ill-treatment. Here, return to Libya risked onward repatriation to Somalia and Eritrea.
Why is the case important?
It is the leading authority on maritime pushbacks, extraterritorial jurisdiction and the prohibition of collective expulsion.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom
- Chahal v. the United Kingdom
- Paposhvili v. Belgium
- Trabelsi v. Belgium
- Saadi v. Italy
- Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.