Prueba de acceso a la universidad - LOGSE - 13 - Exámenes - Biología - Extracto del documento
Exámenes, Biología General
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland, application No. 45036/98, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) of 30 June 2005, (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 1.
1. Introduction and background What is the relationship between the EU and the European Court of Human Rights, where an applicant claims that an EU measure has infringed her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights? Where does jurisdiction lie? This question has puzzled and provoked EU and human rights lawyers for some time and was once again raised by the lengthy Bosphorus litigation, which arose out of the troubled situation in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and the sanctions imposed to deal with it, and finally ended with the judgment of the Court of Human Rights in June 2005. The background to the Strasbourg judgment was lengthy and prolix, involving litigation in Ireland, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, which must be explained if the Strasbourg judgment is to be comprehended fully. Bosphorus was a Turkish airline which, on 17 April 1992, leased two aircraft for 4 years from the Yugoslav national airline (JAT). While present in Ireland, one1 of these aircraft was impounded on 28 May 1993 by the Irish authorities on the basis of Article 8 of EEC (as it then was) Regulation 990/93,2 which implemented at Community level sanctions imposed by the UN3 on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro (FRY). Article 8 provided that Member States of the EU could impound aircraft in which a majority or controlling interest was held by a person, or undertaking, in or operating in FRY. Bosphorus contested the seizure, arguing that Article 8 either did not apply in the circumstances, or that it was contrary to Bosphorus’ fundamental right to property to impound the aircraft. It was accepted during litigation that the lease
1/18/2006, 2:43 PM
CML Rev. 2006
vided cabin and flight crew from its own employees, and Bosphorus had full day-to-day operational control in respect of the aircraft. In compliance with the sanctions, the debt due under the lease was paid into blocked accounts, rather than directly to JAT. The plane was not used for flights to Yugoslavia. Bosphorus applied to the High Court in Dublin for judicial review of the decision of the Minister to impound the aircraft. In its judgment of 21 June 1994 the High Court4 quashed the Minister’s decision, on the grounds that the aircraft was not one to which Article 8 applied. The Minister appealed to the Irish Supreme Court, which decided that determination of the issues depended on the interpretation to be given to Article 8 of the Regulation. It therefore made a preliminary reference to the ECJ under Article 234 EC, asking the following question: “Is Article 8 of Regulation 990/93 to be construed as applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking the majority or controlling interest of which is held by an undertaking in the FRY where the aircraft in question has been leased by the owner for a term of 4 years t