International Law in Brief


International Law in Brief (ILIB) is a forum that provides updates on current developments in international law from the editors of ASIL's International Legal Materials.
| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 25, 2015 |

On September 1, 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) issued its decision (available only in Spanish) in Gonzales Lluy v. Ecuador, finding the Ecuador responsible for violations of the human rights of Talia Lluy, a child infected with HIV after a blood transfusion. Lluy had received blood from the Ecuadorian Red Cross’s blood bank, which led to infection with HIV and resulting damage to her health. The Court ruled that the failure of proper testing by the blood bank was attributable to the state of Ecuador, as the state has an obligation to supervise and monitor...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 25, 2015 |

On September 16, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court) ruled that Slovakia had not failed to meet its obligations under EU law by limiting certain types of disability benefits and Christmas bonuses to low-income Slovak residents. The European Commission had alleged that the limitation of these benefits based on residency was a violation of EU Law, in particular the Regulation on the coordination of social security systems in the Member States of the EU (Regulation), which prohibits discrimination on the base of residency against the recipients of cash benefits such as...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 25, 2015 |

On September 8, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court) ruled that it is lawful for the United Kingdom and Ireland to participate in the Schengen acquis in a limited manner. According to Articles 4 and 5 of the Schengen Protocol (Protocol), the U.K. and Ireland can request to participate in measures developing the Schengen acquis, subject to approval by the Council. Neither country had exercised its option to participate in provisions on external border crossings. Spain initiated the proceedings before the Court to annul Article 19 of the Eurosur...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 25, 2015 |

On September 17, 2015, the European Court of Justice (Court) decided Commission v. Italy and ordered Italy to pay a fine for its delay in recovering state aid incompatible with the common market. In 1999, the Commission initiated proceedings against Italy for granting reductions in and relief from social security contributions to firms, which it argued amounted to impermissible state aid. After having unsuccessfully ordered Italy to recover the aid, the Commission began legal action against Italy for failure to comply with its decision, which led to a 2011 judgment by the Court...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 25, 2015 |

On September 16, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Court) overruled a lower court’s class definition in a class action suit brought by bondholders against Argentina.  The case arose out of litigation by bondholders seeking repayment after Argentina’s default on its sovereign debt in 2001. The lower court’s decision in this instance had “simply [modified] the class definition by removing the continuous holder requirement and expanding the class to all holders of beneficial interests in the relevant bond series without limitation as to time held.” The Court stated that...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 18, 2015 |

On September 15, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France turned down an extradition request for Joseph Habyarimana, a Rwandan who is charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. Mr. Habyarimana is accused of identifying monks of the Tutsi ethnic group to their killers. According to a news report, the court denied the request, arguing that the actions were not considered crimes at the time of their commission and holding that laws cannot be applied retroactively. The President of CPCR, a group of Rwandan plaintiffs, expressed dismay at the ruling saying, “France never reacts positively to...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 18, 2015 |

On September 15, 2015, the European Court of Justice (Court)  ruled that member states of the European Union may exclude Union citizens who go to that state in search of a job from certain non-contributory social security benefits without violating the principle of equal treatment. The Alimanovic family, Swedish citizens originally from Bosnia, moved to Germany in 2010. After their arrival, two family members had held several temporary jobs lasting less than one year and had received unemployment and subsistence benefits from 2011 to 2012 when German authorities stopped the payments,...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 18, 2015 |

On September 10, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (Court) ruled in R.H. v. Sweden, that the deportation of R.H. from Sweden to Somalia does not violate Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. R.H., a woman from Somalia who had unsuccessfully petitioned the Swedish authorities for asylum, sought to stop enforcement of her deportation order claiming that upon her return to Somalia she would face marginalization as a single woman and be sentenced to death if she did not go back to the man she had been forced to...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 18, 2015 |

On September 8, 2015, the European Union and the U.S. finalized negotiations on a data protection “Umbrella Agreement” dealing with high data protection standards for transatlantic law enforcement cooperation. In a statement, EU Commissioner Věra Jourová described the Umbrella Agreement as an “important step to strengthen the fundamental right to privacy effectively and to rebuild trust in EU-US data flows,” highlighting that the Agreement will “guarantee a high level of protection of all personal data when transferred between law enforcement authorities across the Atlantic. It will in...


| By: Catherina Valenzuela-Bock : September 18, 2015 |

On September 8, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) ruled in Ministry of Energy of Iran v. Council to dismiss the application of the Ministry of Energy of Iran (the Ministry) to be removed from the EU sanctions list. The Ministry was initially included in Iranian anti-nuclear proliferation sanctions as it is “[r]esponsible for policy in the energy sector, which provides a substantial source of revenue for the Iranian Government.” The Court found that the Ministry’s “right of defense” had been infringed when the Council took fifteen months, “an unreasonable...