• Home /
• Outsourcing Borders: Monitoring EU externalisation policy /
• Bulletin 9 /
• Jurisprudence updates

Jurisprudence updates

ECtHR clears Italy of responsibility in 2017 Libya pullbacks and deaths

ECtHR clears Italy of responsibility in 2017 Libya pullbacks and deaths

By Dr Kathryn Allinson, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol.

Jurisprudence updates provided in association with the Refugee Law Initiative Working Group on Externalisation.

On 12 June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case S.S. and Others v Italy (pdf) that claims by 17 applicants, who were violently intercepted at sea and suffered grave harm in a Libyan-led operation backed by the Italian state, were inadmissible.

In 2017 a maritime operation by the Libyan Coastguard, to whom the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) in Rome had given command (para. 6), left 20 individuals dead and 47 pulled back to Libya. The key aspect of the judgment is the Court's finding that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as Italy did not exercise sufficient effective control over the relevant area or persons. 

This is despite the extensive evidence presented that, under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (pdf), Italy provided significant coordination, funding, and support to the Libyan Coastguard. This included an Italian vessel acting as the Libyan MRCC, and findings by the Tribunale di Catania that Libyan operations were occurring “under the aegis of the Italian navy” (pdf). Italy's policy, which allows ‘pullbacks by proxy’, is used to achieve indirectly what Italy was barred from doing directly after the Hirsi judgment.

The ECtHR held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on obligations under maritime conventions or the Law of the Sea (paras. 89-113). It then concluded that the criteria for extraterritorial jurisdiction were not satisfied. Referring to the M.N. decision (specifically paras. 101-6), it limits the grounds for extraterritorial jurisdiction to effective control over an area and over an individual (paras. 100-108). Consequently, it rejects the notion of a public powers or a “functional” interpretation of jurisdiction (para. 80). It also held that ‘effective control’ is confined to “physical control” (para. 78) and is a matter of fact that must be established “beyond reasonable doubt” (para. 96).

As a result, the Court applies this extremely high threshold, determining that there was neither effective control over the Libyan search and rescue operations by Italy, nor a situation of dependency in which Italy exerted decisive influence over the Libyan coastguard (para. 92-7). The Court also held that Italy did not have control over the crew of the Libyan ship, so there was no ratione personae (para. 102). However, the ECHR requires state control over the applicants themselves, not their agents (this being the test for attribution).

Ultimately, the decision adopts a very restrictive approach to establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction in maritime interdiction contexts. This diverges from the approach of the UN Human Rights Committee, creating accountability gaps that enable states to violate migrants' rights by outsourcing activities to other actors. The Court recognises this in its final comments, acknowledging the ‘unsatisfactory’ nature of its judgement (para. 109-111).