Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Investor–State arbitration — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Energy Charter Treaty concluded between European Union and States some of which Members of the European Union — Whether provision for investor–State arbitration compatible with European Union law in intra-European Union disputes — Applicable law — Whether including European Union law — Nature of arbitration tribunal

Economics, trade and finance — Investment — Investment protection treaties — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — Investor–State arbitration provision — Whether provision for arbitration of investor–State dispute compatible with European Union law in intra-European Union disputes

Treaties — Interpretation — Principles — Relevance of other rules of international law — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — Whether provisions on investor–State arbitration should be read as inapplicable to disputes between investor from one European Union State and another European Union State — Whether investor–State dispute resolution provision providing for arbitration compatible with Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007

Treaties — Conflict between treaty obligations — European Union Member States — Whether obligations under European Union treaties prevailing over obligations under Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — Express provision on conflict — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 16

Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Union law — Double nature of European Union law as part of the law in force in every Member State and as deriving from an international agreement between the Member States — Relationship between rights accorded to investors under investment protection treaty and principles of European Union law

Treaties — Application — Principle of non-retroactivity — Article 28 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Russian Federation ratifying European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 on 5 May 1998 — Polish prisoners of war killed on instructions of Soviet authorities in 1940 — Relatives of those killed complaining that Convention rights breached by Russian Federation — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of Convention — Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 — Separate and autonomous duty — Clarification of principles in Šilih — Procedural acts and omissions in period after Convention entered into force for Russian Federation — Whether genuine connection between killings as triggering event and entry into force of Convention in respect of Russian Federation — Whether two criteria satisfied — Whether lapse of time reasonably short — Whether major part of investigation taking place or ought to have taken place in period after Convention entered into force for Russian Federation — Whether connection which was not genuine sufficient in extraordinary situations — Convention values test — Whether need to ensure real and effective protection of guarantees and underlying values of Convention — Whether Court upholding respondent Government’s objection ratione temporis

Human rights — Right to life — Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 — Separate and autonomous duty — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

International criminal law — Treaties — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Serious crimes under international law — War crimes — Katyn massacre — Whether killings negating foundations of Convention — Whether creating necessary connection between killings as triggering event and entry into force of Convention in respect of Russian Federation — Whether procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention coming into effect — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of Convention

Treaties — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Convention coming into existence on 4 November 1950 — Serious crimes under international law in 1940 — Whether Convention values clause applying to events occurring prior to adoption of Convention — Whether condition met for procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention to take effect — Whether Russian Federation obliged to carry out effective investigation

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Prolonged denial of historical fact — Withholding of information from victims’ relatives — Whether suffering of victims’ relatives having dimension and character distinct from inevitable distress stemming from violation itself — Whether applicants uncertain about fate of their relatives — Whether Russian Federation violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for Court’s investigation — Failure to provide Court with requested document — Relevance of domestic top secret classification — Whether Court considering document necessary to establish facts in case — Effective operation of system of individual petition — Whether obligation could be enforced irrespective of outcome of proceedings — Whether Russian Federation violating Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment by Court of admissibility, relevance and probative value of evidence — Contracting States having obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to Court — Effective operation of system of individual petition — Proper and effective examination of applications — Respondent Government failing to provide document — Relevance of top secret classification at domestic level — Whether Russian Federation failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Internal law and observance of treaties — Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Top secret classification of document in domestic law — Respondent Government using domestic legal impediment as justification for not furnishing requested evidence — Whether permissible — International responsibility of Russian Federation — Whether Governments answerable under European Convention for acts of any State agency — Relevance of national security concerns — Whether Russian Federation failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

War and armed conflict — Prisoners of war — Murder by forces of detaining State — Katyn massacre of Polish prisoners of war by Soviet forces — Whether engaging obligations of Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Special Agreement — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Articles 286, 287 and 288 of UNCLOS — Article 21 of Statute of Tribunal — Admissibility — Objections to admissibility — Preclusions from raising objections in special agreement — Time limit — Single-phase proceedings — Article 97(1) of Rules of Tribunal — Requirement of a genuine link — Article 91(1) of UNCLOS — Nationality of claims — Whether exhaustion of local remedies rule applying where State’s rights directly injured — Article 295 of UNCLOS

Sea — Exclusive economic zone — Navigation — Rights of regulation of coastal State — Whether coastal States having competence to regulate bunkering in their exclusive economic zones — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Articles 56(1), 58 and 62(4) of UNCLOS — Boarding, inspection and arrest of vessel as enforcement measures — Confiscation as enforcement measure — Necessity — Reasonableness — Mitigating factors — Article 73(1) — Prompt release — Article 73(2) — Whether confinement of crew and holding of passports amounting to imprisonment — Article 73(3) — Notification of detention and arrest of vessel — Article 73(4) — Whether principles could be derived from Articles 110 and 224 — Excessive force in enforcement measures — Endangering safety of navigation, creating hazards to vessels, exposure of unreasonable risks to marine environment — Whether Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 applicable — Abuse of rights — Application of Article 300 of UNCLOS

State responsibility — Compensation for damage and losses relating to value of confiscated gas oil — Compensation for cost of repairs in respect of some damages — Compensation for loss of profit not awarded — Causal nexus — Interest

Treaties — Interpretation — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982

State immunity — Head of State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Absolute immunity of incumbent foreign head of State — Application for determination of paternity against foreign head of State — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6 — Article 8 — Right of extra-marital family to live a normal family life — Relationship between human rights and absolute immunity — Whether human rights taking precedence over immunity under certain conditions — Whether court barred from exercising jurisdiction

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Right to a family life — Relationship between human rights and absolute immunity — Whether human rights taking precedence over immunity under certain conditions — Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — The law of Austria

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Greek sovereign debt crisis — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Greek debt restructuring law as acta jure imperii — Issuing of government bonds as acta jure gestionis — Plaintiffs’ claims based on performance of terms of issue of government bonds or compensation for their non-performance following debt restructuring — Whether State immunity applicable

Jurisdiction — gBrussels I Regulation — Lawsuits demanding performance of terms of issue of government bonds or compensation for their non-performance — Whether “civil matter” under the Brussels I Regulation — Whether Brussels I Regulation applicable — The law of Austria

Human rights — Freedom of expression — Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 9 of Austrian State Treaty — Prohibition of National Socialism — Whether statements of university professor as public servant questioning occurrence of the Holocaust protected by freedom of expression

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Disciplinary proceedings — Impartiality of judges — Whether participation of members of disciplinary commission in earlier decisions on interim suspension leading to those members being biased — The law of Austria

International organizations — Immunity from jurisdiction — International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”) — IAEA–Austria Headquarters Agreement, 1957 — Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Employment claim — Whether right of access to court superseding immunity of IAEA — Claimant having access to International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal — The law of Austria

State immunity — Head of State immunity — Immunity ratione personae — Immunity ratione materiae — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 20(1)(b) — Members of family of head of State — Extended royal family — Half-brother of King — Half-brother’s son — Whether Princes forming part of household of head of State — Whether Princes immune from proceedings pursuant to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Princes engaging in alleged commercial activity outside United Kingdom — Whether commercial activity exception applicable — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 31(1)(c) — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — Diplomatic immunity — State immunity — Functional basis — Customary international law — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 20(1)(b) — Foreign heads of State — Immunity ratione personae — Immunity ratione materiae — Members of family forming part of household of head of State — Definition — Alleged commercial activity outside United Kingdom — Whether personal immunity applicable — The law of England

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 of Convention — Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating Convention — General principle of non-retrospectivity of Convention — Whether Convention binding Contracting Party in relation to act taking place before entry into force of Convention for that Party — Critical date — Whether State having duty to investigate a suspicious death occurring before critical date — Whether two requirements satisfied — Whether relevant acts or omissions after critical date — Whether genuine connection between death and critical date — Whether ten-year threshold exceeded — Whether critical date when United Kingdom recognizing right to petition or when Convention entering into force — Whether underpinning of underlying values of Convention necessary — Article 1 of Convention — Whether United Kingdom failing to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction right to life — Whether appellants having right to public inquiry under Article 2 of Convention

Treaties — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 of Convention — General principle of non-retroactivity — Whether Convention binding Contracting Party in relation to act taking place before entry into force of Convention for that Party — Critical date — Whether State having duty to investigate a suspicious death occurring before critical date — Convention values — Whether underpinning of underlying values of Convention necessary — Whether appellants having right to public inquiry under Article 2 of Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Whether international law requiring inquiry into killings by 1948 — Whether United Kingdom having obligation to investigate killings — Whether any principle could be recognized by common law — Whether appellants having right to public inquiry under common law by virtue of incorporated principles of customary international law — Whether decisions reached by respondents rational and proportionate — Whether appellants having right to public inquiry under common law by virtue of judicial review

Human rights — Human rights treaties — Nature and scope — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Duty of Contracting Parties to secure rights and freedoms under Convention to persons within their jurisdiction — Killings by British Army in State of Selangor in 1948 — Whether within jurisdiction of United Kingdom — Whether United Kingdom responsible for deaths — Whether United Kingdom responsible for holding inquiry into deaths — Whether United Kingdom failing to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction right to life — Whether appellants having right to public inquiry under Article 2 of Convention

Jurisdiction — Territory — State of Selangor — Former British Protected State in Federation of Malaya — Killings by British Army in Selangor in 1948 — Federation of Malaya becoming independent in 1957 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Securing of rights and freedoms within United Kingdom jurisdiction — Whether deaths occurring in circumstances within jurisdiction of United Kingdom within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Temporal jurisdiction — Whether deaths occurring within jurisdiction if Convention had been in force in Malaya in 1948 — Whether time between deaths and extension of Convention to Malayan Federation less than ten years — Whether Strasbourg test satisfied — Whether United Kingdom responsible for deaths in 1948 — Constitutional arrangements between United Kingdom and Federation of Malaya in 1957 — Whether affecting any domestic law duty — Whether United Kingdom exercising control over persons who died — Whether conduct of British Army within United Kingdom jurisdiction — Whether United Kingdom responsible for holding inquiry into deaths — Whether any jurisdictional obstacle to ordering an inquiry into killings

State succession — State of Selangor — Former British Protected State in Federation of Malaya — Killings by British Army in Selangor in 1948 — Federation of Malaya becoming independent in 1957 — Constitution of Federation of Malaya providing for rights, liabilities and obligations to pass from United Kingdom to Federation — Alleged misconduct by British Army — State liability for deaths — Whether remaining with State responsible for deaths or passing to successor State — Whether different constitutional arrangements between United Kingdom and Federation of Malaya affecting rights of victims against United Kingdom — Whether domestic rights arising from European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, international law or common law principles — Whether United Kingdom responsible for deaths — Whether United Kingdom having duty to hold inquiry into deaths

State responsibility — State of Selangor — Former British Protected State in Federation of Malaya — Killings by British Army in Selangor in 1948 — Federation of Malaya becoming independent in 1957 — Constitution of Federation of Malaya providing for rights, liabilities and obligations to pass from United Kingdom to Federation — Alleged misconduct by British Army — State liability for deaths — Whether remaining with State responsible for deaths or passing to successor State — Whether different constitutional arrangements between United Kingdom and Federation of Malaya affecting rights of victims against United Kingdom — Whether domestic rights arising from European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, international law or common law principles — Whether United Kingdom responsible for deaths — Whether United Kingdom having duty to hold inquiry into deaths

Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Duty to investigate suspicious deaths — Separate and autonomous duty — Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights — Šilih — Janowiec — Convention not binding Contracting Party in relation to act taking place before date of entry into force of Convention with respect to that party — Critical date — Non-retrospectivity of Convention — Whether State having duty to investigate suspicious death occurring before critical date — Temporal jurisdiction — Genuine connection — Convention values — Whether United Kingdom having duty to hold inquiry into deaths

War and armed conflict — Killings by British Army in State of Selangor in Federation of Malaya in 1948 — State of emergency in Malaya — Federation of Malaya former British Protected State — Federation of Malaya becoming independent in 1957 — Whether United Kingdom responsible for deaths — Whether United Kingdom having duty to hold inquiry into deaths — The law of the United Kingdom

Diplomatic relations — Special missions — Immunity and inviolability from criminal jurisdiction — Customary international law — State agreeing to receive special mission — Whether customary international law requiring that State secure inviolability and immunity from criminal jurisdiction of members of special mission — Nature of immunity — Whether operation of such immunity restricted to official acts

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Requirements of customary international law — Incorporation of customary international law into common law — Whether domestic constitutional principles providing bar or impediment to a judge giving effect to customary international law — Whether unresolved uncertainties in scope and field of application of customary rule providing a reason for declining to give effect to the rule at common law

Treaties — UN Convention on Special Missions, 1969 — Whether UN Convention on Special Missions representing a codification of customary international law regarding special missions — Extent of core immunities within customary international law — The law of England