Jurisdictional Immunities of the State

Last updated
Jurisdictional
Immunities of the State
(Germany v Italy)
International Court of Justice Seal.svg
Court International Court of Justice
Full case nameJurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening)
DecidedFebruary 3, 2012 (2012-02-03)
Court membership
Judges sitting Hisashi Owada (President), Peter Tomka (Vice-President), Abdul G. Koroma, Bruno Simma, Ronny Abraham, Kenneth Keith, Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, Mohamed Bennouna, Leonid Skotnikov, Antônio Trindade, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, Christopher Greenwood, Joan Donoghue, Xue Hanqin, Giorgio Gaja (ad hoc)
Case opinions
Keywords

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) was a case concerning the extent of state immunity before the International Court of Justice. The case was brought by Germany after various decisions by Italian courts to ignore the state immunity of Germany when confronted with claims against Germany by victims of Nazi-era war crimes. The court found that Italy was wrong to ignore German immunity, and found that Italy was obligated to render the decisions of its courts against Germany without effect.

Contents

Facts

The original claims were based on a number of war crimes committed by German troops during World War II. The substance of the facts were not disputed by Germany. A number of international agreements and measures had been passed which purported to waive the claims of the victims involved, or make reparations. [1] For instance, a 1947 peace treaty between Italy and the Allies purported to waive claims by Italian nationals; a 1963 agreement between Germany and Italy again purported to waive claims of Italian nationals for 40m Deutsche marks in compensation. Germany had also passed various laws to effect individual compensation to victims of Nazi era atrocities.

Luigi Ferrini

Luigi Ferrini was an Italian who was deported from occupied Italy and forced to work in a munitions plant in Germany. During 1998 he instituted proceedings against Germany in lower court at Arezzo. The lower court and then the appeals court denied his claim, on the basis that Germany was entitled to state immunity. However, during 2004 the Italian Court of Cassation reversed this judgment on the grounds that state immunity is lost when international crimes are alleged. On remand, the lower courts entered judgment in favor of Ferrini. [2]

Max Josef Milde

Max Josef Milde was a German soldier, member of the Hermann Goering Division, who during 2004 was convicted in absentia for war crimes involving a massacre of civilians in the Italian towns of Civitella in Val di Chiana and San Pancazio. In connection with this conviction, Germany was held jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from this act. The Court of Cassation reaffirmed its reasoning in the Ferrini case by affirming this judgment during 2008. [3]

Distomo massacre

On June 10, 1944, hundreds of people in the Greek village of Distomo were massacred by German troops in retaliation for Resistance activities nearby. Survivors and relatives of victims of this Distomo massacre sued Germany in Greek courts during 1995. Germany did not appear and the trial court entered a default judgment, upheld on appeal by the Greek Court of Cassation. However, the Greek Justice Minister refused to grant the required permission to enforce the judgment in Greece. In response, the plaintiffs attempted to enforce the judgment at the European Court of Human Rights and in the German courts, but were denied on grounds of state immunity. Finally, after the Ferrini decision, the plaintiffs petitioned for enforcement in Italy; the Italian courts agreed to enforce the judgment and during 2007 the plaintiffs placed a legal charge on Villa Vigoni, a property in Italy owned by the German state. [4]

Procedural history

Germany filed its application to institute proceedings on December 23, 2008. [5] The basis of the Court's jurisdiction was the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, which during 1961 bound both Germany and Italy to submit subsequent disputes to the ICJ. Italy responded with a counterclaim that Germany should pay reparations for the original events. [6] The counterclaim was rejected on the basis that atrocities predated the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and so the Court did not have jurisdiction. [7] During 2011, Greece petitioned and was allowed to intervene in the case on the side of Italy. [8]

Judgment

By a vote of 12 to 3, the court rejected both alleged exceptions to the doctrine of state immunity proposed by Italy. [9]

Firstly, the court rejected a theory of "territorial tort", in which Italy would be entitled to ignore immunity because torts were committed on Italian territory. [10] The court analyzed this exception within the narrow confines of the facts of the case: the torts were committed by an armed force during armed hostilities. The court noted that while the general territorial tort certainly has support for jure gestionis , or commercial activities of state, it is clear that such a tort is not meant to apply to armed forces engaged in an armed conflict. The court cited the European Convention on State Immunity, the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, and the state practice of a number of countries to establish that there was little support for extending the territorial tort as much as Italy proposed.

Secondly, the court rejected a more expansive exception to state immunity, by which immunity would be lost if serious human rights violations were alleged and no reparations were forthcoming. Italy advanced three "strands" to this argument: Italy argued that the gravity of the violations required elimination of state immunity, that not to eliminate state immunity would effectively derogate from a peremptory, or jus cogens norm; and immunity was lost because the claimants had no other means of redress. [11] Italy also argued that these three strands, if not each independently sufficient to warrant a loss of immunity, were sufficient when they were combined.

Addressing the first strand, the court noted that allowing a judicial enquiry into the gravity of the crime would defeat the purpose of immunity, which is to avoid the trial process. [12] Additionally, that there is little support in international conventions and state practice for the idea that severity of a crime could eliminate state immunity. [13] The court distinguished the Pinochet case, in which Augusto Pinochet was arrested despite immunity as a head of state, by stating that Pinochet was a criminal case against an individual, not a civil case against a state itself. [14]

Addressing the second strand, the court distinguished between procedural and substantive rules and found that there was no conflict between substantive jus cogens prohibitions on enslavement, for instance, and procedural state immunity. [15] The court noted that this was consistent with the ICJ's rulings in Armed Activities in the Congo and Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, in which jus cogens rules did not confer jurisdiction or abrogate immunities of officials. [16] The court further noted that no state practice supported the argument that jus cogens rules displace immunity. [17]

Addressing the third strand, the Court distinguished between immunity and the substantive rules of international law by which Germany might still owe reparations. [18] A finding of immunity does not equal a finding that Germany did not owe reparations. [19] The Court indicated that under that theory, the existence of immunity would depend on the final failure of a diplomatic solution, but the failure would be exceptionally difficult to identify. [20]

Finally, having rejected the strands of Italy's argument individually, the Court rejected their aggregate as well, specifying that immunity could not be based on a substantive balancing test applied by national courts. [21] After finding that Italy was obliged to grant Germany immunity before Italian courts, the Court found that the petition for enforcement of a Greek judgment (application for exequatur ) was subject to the same rules and should likewise have been denied due to immunity. [22]

By a vote of 14 to 1, the court found that Italy was obliged, by a means of its own choosing, to render void the decisions of its courts infringing the state immunity due to Germany. [23]

Dissenting Judge Bennouna said there was a difference between state immunity and state responsibility. Granting immunity does not exonerate one from responsibility. In this case the court should have recognised that Germany admitted to their crimes, and therefore are responsible. If Germany wishes to have immunity, they need to assume responsibility in their own national courts, otherwise, they cannot rest on their state immunity.

Development

In 2014 the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that sovereign immunity for the crimes in question violated the core rights guaranteed by the Italian constitution. Sovereign immunity would therefore no longer be applicable law in Italy for these war crimes cases.

In 2022, Germany sued Italy again for alleged fresh violations of Germany's sovereign immunity. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Court of Justice</span> Primary judicial organ of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948, during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 152 state parties as of 2022.

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide</span> Murder of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats during the Bosnian War

The Bosnian genocide refers to either the Srebrenica massacre or the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000–30,000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

International law, also known as "law of nations", refers to the body of rules which regulate the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with one another. Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings. They are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories.

The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide case</span> 2007 International Court of Justice decision

Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Distomo massacre</span> Mass-killing in Distomo, Nazi-occupied Greece

The Distomo massacre was a Nazi war crime which was perpetrated by members of the Waffen-SS in the village of Distomo, Greece, in 1944, during the German occupation of Greece during World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immunity from prosecution (international law)</span>

Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed.

<i>Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 case</i> 2002 International court of Justice case

Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) [2002] ICJ 1 was a public international law case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a judgment issued on 14 February 2002.

<i>Corfu Channel</i> case 1947-49 International Court of Justice case on sea law

The Corfu Channel case was the first public international law case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between 1947 and 1949, concerning state responsibility for damages at sea, as well as the doctrine of innocent passage. A contentious case, it was the first of any type heard by the ICJ after its establishment in 1945.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dire Tladi</span>

Dire Tladi is a professor of international law at the Department of Public Law and the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa at the University of Pretoria. He is also extraordinary professor at the Public Law Department of the University of Stellenbosch. He has served as the Principal State Law Adviser for International Law for the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation and Legal Counsellor to the South Africa Mission to the United Nations.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

The Bilateral Compensation Agreements for Victims of the Nazi Regime between the Federal Republic of Germany, colloquially referred to as West Germany, which the West German government concluded between 1959 and 1964 with twelve Western European countries, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, to compensate victims of Nazi prosecution. In the bilateral agreements Germany settled on paying DM 876 million in what Germany considered voluntary compensation, without any legal obligation.

<i>Certain Iranian Assets</i> Case in the International Court of Justice

Certain Iranian Assets is the formal name of a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The application was lodged by Iran against the United States on 14 June 2016, on grounds of violation of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, shortly after Bank Markazi v. Peterson was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Iranian case seeks the unfreezing and return of nearly $2 billion in assets held in the United States. The case focuses specifically on assets seized from the Iranian national bank, Bank Markazi. These funds were seized to compensate victims of a 1983 suicide bombing of a Marine Corps base in Beirut, Lebanon, which has been tied to Iran. The attack killed more than 300 and injured many more, including U.S. military members. Iran has argued in the case that, among other things, the United States has failed to accord Iran and Iranian state-owned companies, and their property, sovereign immunity, and failed to recognize the juridical separateness of Iranian state-owned companies.

References

  1. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶22-26 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  2. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶27 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  3. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶29 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  4. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶30-36 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  5. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Application to Institute Proceedings (December 23, 2008) Archived May 12, 2011, at the Wayback Machine .
  6. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter-Memorial of Italy (December 22, 2009).
  7. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter-Claim Order (July 6, 2010).
  8. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Order on the Application of the Hellenic Republic to Intervene (July 4, 2011).
  9. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶139 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  10. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶79 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  11. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶80 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  12. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶81 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  13. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶83-90 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  14. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶87 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  15. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶93-94 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  16. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶95 (Feb 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  17. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶96 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  18. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶100 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  19. ↑ Deepak Raju & Blerina Jasari, "Intervention before the ICJ: A critical examination of the Court's decision in Germany v. Italy", NUJS Law Review, January 2, 2015
  20. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶102 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  21. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶106 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  22. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶131 (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  23. ↑ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Judgment, ¶139(4) (February 3, 2012) Archived 2016-12-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  24. ↑ "Germany takes Italy to court over Nazi compensation claims". France 24. 30 April 2022. Retrieved 1 May 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.