CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 8 July 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 613/24 Ismail ZIADA against the Netherlands lodged on 23 December 2023 communicated on 18 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Dutch national who is originally from the Palestinian territories and has been resident in the Netherlands since 2005. Six of his close family members were killed when their home in Gaza was destroyed during "Operation Protective Edge" in 2014. Before the Dutch civil courts, the applicant requested a declaratory decision that two Israeli public officials, who were commanding officers at the relevant time, acted unlawfully towards him and that they were jointly liable to him for the damage he incurred, and will incur, as a result. He also applied for an order to pay damages. By judgment of 29 January 2020 the Regional Court of The Hague declared itself incompetent to examine the applicant’s civil claim, holding that the Israeli public officials enjoyed functional immunity from jurisdiction. On 7 December 2021 the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed this judgment. On 25 August 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, holding that according to customary international law, the public officials were entitled by law to invoke immunity from civil jurisdiction in foreign courts for acts committed in the exercise of their public functions, irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the conduct complained of, and irrespective of the availability of an alternative forum to pursue the claim. Referring to, inter alia , Jones and Others v.   the   United   Kingdom (nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, ECHR 2014), the Supreme Court noted that there were no indications that State practice and a corresponding legal opinion had developed that would suggest otherwise. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his access to court to pursue a civil claim against the two Israeli public officials was unduly restricted.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the granting of immunity from civil suit to the two Israeli public officials in question amount to a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see J.C. and Others v. Belgium , no.   11625/17, §§ 54-55, 12 October 2021, Jones and Others v.   the   United   Kingdom , nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, §§ 186-195, ECHR   2014; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§   52 ‑ 56, ECHR   2001-XI; and McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no.   31253/96,   §§ 33 ‑ 37, CEDH 2001-XI (extracts))?