Wrong Again!

When Emrah Emre took his human rights claim to Strasbourg, he faced an uphill battle against the ever-neutral Swiss.

After a range of convictions including assault and robbery, Emre, a Turkish national living in Switzerland, was indefinitely banned from re-entry into Switzerland - a harsh sentence for seemingly minor offenses. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) agreed with Emre.

In 2008, the ECHR passed down a judgment stating that the Swiss punishment did not "[strike] a fair balance." In response, the Swiss courts lessened Emre's sentence to a 10-year ban. Emre said that was not enough. Again, the ECHR agrees. The ECHR passed down a second judment stating that "the Swiss domestic court (le tribunal fédéral) had substituted the court's balancing of interests by its own. Even if one would suppose...that such a thing would be admissible, such renewed balancing should be complete and convincing in dealing with all the relevant factors the court had identified."

The real question here is not whether or not a Turkish national was robbed of human rights by Swiss law. The underlying debate about the role of international courts in domestic issues is the real question here. Although it has long been policy for a state to have liberty in applying judgments passed down from the Hague, this decision is a grave derivation from precedent. Is there a new question of sovereignty in this case? And looking at the bigger picture: Is this just another step toward a more unified European Union?

Read the full court opinion here (French):

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=893340&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

The English opinion and article can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/oct/18/esme-switzerland-european-court-human-rights