A/HRC/33/48 61. The Court is seized of a matter by means of individual applications from persons or entities claiming to be victims of a violation of the Convention or one of the Protocols thereto.59 However, the Court may only consider a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognized rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. 60 Furthermore, the Court does not consider applications that are “substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information”. 61 The judgments of the Court are binding on the States parties to the Convention. 62 62. The Court may award damages to the applicant, that is “afford just satisfaction to the injured party”, if it “finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made”.63 However, it has been observed that “the European Court’s primary remedy is a declaration that there has been a violation of the Convention” and the Court has been known not to award damages, “on the basis that its finding of a violation of the Convention is ‘sufficient’ just satisfaction”.64 63. There have been a few cases related to restrictive measures that have been adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights. In the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirket v. Ireland, which concerned measures taken by Ireland in pursuance of European Union decisions taken to implement Security Council sanctions in respect of the former Yugoslavia. Ireland had impounded an aircraft leased by the national airline of the former Yugoslavia to a Turkish company in compliance with the restrictive measures regime targeting the former Yugoslavia. The Court found that the measure was an act of compliance by Ireland with its legal obligations under Community law. It took the view that “State action taken in compliance with such legal obligations is justified as long as the relevant organization is considered to protect fundamental rights, as regards both the substantive guarantees offered and the mechanisms controlling their observance, in a manner which can be considered at least equivalent to that for which the Convention provides”.65 The Court found that the protection of fundamental rights by Community law could be considered to be “equivalent” to that of the European Convention on Human Rights system, and consequently found that Ireland “did not depart from the requirements of the Convention when it implemented legal obligations flowing from its membership of the European Community”.66 It therefore concluded that Ireland’s actions did not give rise to a violation of article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in relation to property rights. 64. In the case of Nada v. Switzerland, an Italian and Egyptian national claimed that the ban on entering or transiting through Switzerland, which had been imposed on him as a result of the inclusion of his name in the list annexed to the Federal Taliban Ordinance of the Swiss Government had violated various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, including his right to liberty (art. 5) and his right to respect for private and 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 See European Convention on Human Rights, art. 34. Ibid., art. 35 (1). Ibid., art. 35 (2) (b). Ibid., art. 46 (1). Ibid., art. 41. Philip Leach, Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011) 465-467. See Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirket v. Ireland, Application No. 45036/98, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 30 June 2005, para. 155. Ibid., para. 165. 17