Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

The Court considers that there is no indication that the Albanian authorities exercised jurisdiction over the applicants within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 61-63, ECHR 2001-XII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

The Court also notes that, whereas provisions of international agreements may create individual rights protected by the Convention either where the provision is directly applicable (see S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2002-III, concerning a failure to bring the domestic law into line with a Community directive) or where the requisite domestic legislation applying it has been enacted (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 296-B, concerning a right to compensation deriving from a Franco-Moroccan treaty and subsequent French legislation setting up a committee responsible for apportioning the Moroccan indemnity), the provisions of the Bilateral Agreement and the Transfer Convention confine themselves to providing the inter-State procedural framework for the transfer of sentenced persons and do not generate any individual substantive rights per se.

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

In any event, these international instruments do not contain an obligation on the signatory States to comply with a request for transfer (see Passaris v. Greece (dec.), no. 53344/07, 4 September 2009).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

While it is precisely this failure to transfer that the applicants complain about, there is no element in the circumstances of the case allowing the Court to conclude that the applicants were ever capable of falling within the Albanian jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, §§ 91-98, Series A no. 240; Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, §§ 59-64, Series A no. 310; Bankovic and Others, cited above, §§ 74-82; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 300-394, ECHR 2004-VII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

The Court also notes that, whereas provisions of international agreements may create individual rights protected by the Convention either where the provision is directly applicable (see S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2002-III, concerning a failure to bring the domestic law into line with a Community directive) or where the requisite domestic legislation applying it has been enacted (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 296-B, concerning a right to compensation deriving from a Franco-Moroccan treaty and subsequent French legislation setting up a committee responsible for apportioning the Moroccan indemnity), the provisions of the Bilateral Agreement and the Transfer Convention confine themselves to providing the inter-State procedural framework for the transfer of sentenced persons and do not generate any individual substantive rights per se.