THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING CONTESTED TERRITORIES: “DIFFERENTIATED” JURISDICTION AS A PANACEA OR AS AN ACHILLE’S HEEL?

This article analyses the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning human rights violations in contested territories, where both a territorial State and an occupying or influencing State are involved. More precisely, the contribution focuses on how the Court has adapted the concept of “effective control” to the peculiarities of this kind of scenario and how this reflected both on the definition of relevant primary norms and on the application of Article 41 of the Convention. Also, in light of the specific institutional features of the ECHR system, the overall idea emerging from this case law is that the notion of “differentiated jurisdiction” might pose complex challenges to the Court all along the judicial process.