A/HRC/33/48 family life, honour and reputation (art. 8). The Court found violations of articles 8 and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. It stressed that, under Swiss law, no effective remedy by which to complain of the breaches of rights guaranteed by the Convention was available, since, even if the applicant was able to apply to the national authorities to have his name deleted from the list annexed to the Federal Taliban Ordinance, “those authorities did not examine on the merits his complaints concerning the alleged violations of the Convention. In particular, the Swiss Federal Court took the view that, whilst it could verify whether Switzerland was bound by the Security Council resolutions, it could not lift the sanctions imposed on the applicant on the ground that they did not respect human rights”.67 The Court explicitly referred in that regard to the finding of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Kadi case that it was not a consequence of the principles governing the international legal order under the United Nations that any judicial review of the internal lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of fundamental freedoms was excluded by virtue of the fact that that measure was intended to give effect to a resolution of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.68 It expressed the opinion that “the same reasoning must be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the present case, more specifically to the review by the Swiss authorities of the conformity of the Federal Taliban Ordinance with the Convention” and found that “there was nothing in the Security Council Resolutions to prevent the Swiss authorities from introducing mechanisms to verify the measures taken at national level pursuant to those Resolutions”. In this case, the applicant’s claim for “just satisfaction” in the form of damages under article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights was dismissed. 65. The case of Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland was brought by Khalaf M. Al-Dulimi claiming that his right of access to a court guaranteed by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated by the Swiss authorities, which had refused to seek adjudication on his claim that his and his company’s assets had been unlawfully frozen and confiscated by the Swiss authorities. The position of the Swiss Government was that the Swiss courts could not adjudicate because Switzerland had no discretionary powers and had to implement Security Council resolution 1483 and freeze the assets of persons connected with the Government of Iraq. The European Court of Human Rights held that this was a disproportionate restriction of Mr. Al-Dulimi’s right under article 6 of the Convention, because neither the Security Council nor the Swiss courts were providing him with access to effective judicial review, which was essential, given the considerable restriction of freezing (since 1990) and confiscating (since 2006) his assets. The similarity between this and the Kadi case is obvious and it is noteworthy that the European Court observed that there was no Ombudsperson for the sanctions list related to Security Council resolution 1483 (as there is, as a result of the Kadi case, for the list relating to Security Council sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations) and stressed that “for as long as there is no independent and effective judicial review, at the level of the United Nations, of the legitimacy of adding individuals and entities to the relevant lists, it is essential that such individuals and entities should be authorized to request the review by the national courts of any measure adopted pursuant to the sanctions regime”.69 However, the claim in respect of damages was dismissed. 66. One important potential limitation regarding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is that the European Convention on Human Rights extends the obligation 67 68 69 18 See Nada v. Switzerland, para. 210. Ibid., para. 212; also Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, para. 299. See Al-Dulimi and Montana Management v. Switzerland, Application No. 5809/08, European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), Judgment of 26 November 2013, para. 134.