CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 décembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92 December 2006 Ben El Mahi v. Denmark (dec.) - 5853/06 Decision 11.12.2006 [Section V] Article 1 Responsibility of states No jurisdictional link between Denmark and Moroccan nationals complaining about the publication in a Danish newspaper of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad: inadmissible   The applicants are a Moroccan national living in Morocco and two Moroccan associations operating in that country. In September 2005 a Danish newspaper, referring to freedom of expression and alleging that there was increasing self-censorship in society with regard to Islamic issues, published twelve different cartoons, most of which were caricatures of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The most controversial of the cartoons showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. The Danish Government refused to intervene in the conflict. Likewise, in March 2006, the Director of Public Prosecution decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the newspaper and rejected the relevant complaint of several Muslim organisations based in Denmark. Subsequently, those organisations brought civil proceedings against the newspaper, to no avail. In the meantime, the publication of the cartoons (and their reprinting in some other countries) caused international controversy, protests, demonstrations and consumer boycotts, notably in the Muslim world. According to the established case-law the concept of “jurisdiction” for the purposes of Article   1 of the Convention must reflect the term's meaning in public international law which assumes that a State's jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial and also that jurisdiction is presumed to be exercised normally throughout the State's territory. Only in exceptional circumstances may the acts of Contracting States performed outside their territory or which produce effects there (an “extra-territorial act”) amount to an exercise by them of their jurisdiction within the meaning of Article   1. For instance, a State's responsibility may be engaged where, as a consequence of military action – whether lawful or unlawful – that State in practice exercises effective control of an area situated outside its national territory. A State may also be held accountable for violation of the Convention rights and freedoms of persons who are in the territory of another State but who are found to be under the former State's authority and control through its agents operating, whether lawfully or unlawfully, in the latter State. Accountability in such situations stems from the fact that Article   1 cannot be interpreted so as to allow a State Party to perpetrate violations of the Convention on the territory of another State which it would not be permitted to perpetrate on its own territory. Such exceptions were not at issue in the present case. Here, the applicants were, respectively, a Moroccan national, resident in Morocco, and two Moroccan associations which were based and operated in that country. The Court found no jurisdictional link between any of the applicants and the respondent State, nor could the applicants come within the jurisdiction of Denmark on account of any extra-territorial act. Accordingly, the Court had no competence to examine the applicants' substantive complaints: inadmissible .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes