Republic of Argentina v NMC Capital Ltd

On By In Supreme Court
Belgian Supreme Court, Republic of Argentina v. NMC Capital LTD, Nr. C.11.0688.F, 22 November 2012
ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20121122.3

The judgment annuls a previous judgment by the Brussels Court of Appeals dated 21 June 2011. In the latter judgment , the Court of Appeals took the view that Argentina’s general waiver of immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from execution also covered the goods of Argentina’s diplomatic mission in Belgium, including its bank accounts (without there being a need to verify whether the amounts seized were used for purposes other than the functioning of the diplomatic mission). According to the Supreme Court, this approach violated articles 22, 3 and 25 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as well as the customary rule of ‘ne impediatur legatio’. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed the need for an explicit and specific waiver of immunity in respect of goods of the diplomatic mission.

Download

Confederation of Christian Trade Unions and General Federation of Labour of Belgium v United States

On By In Labour Court of Appeal
Labour Court of Appeal Brussels, Confederation of Christian Trade Unions and General Federation of Labour of Belgium v United States, Nr. 2010/AB/1214, 3 May 2012
ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2012:ARR.20120503.14

The jurisdictional immunity of states is a rule of customary international law that prohibits the jurisdictions of one state from exercising its jurisdictional power over another state that has not consented. However, this immunity is limited: it concerns acts relating to sovereignty, not administration. In principle, the states may not invoke jurisdictional immunity before a court of another state in proceedings relating to employment contracts. However, no exception to the states’ jurisdictional immunity is provided for collective labor relations. Disputes concerning the regulations on the establishment of works councils are collective and not individual. The primacy of access to justice (Article 6 of the ECHR) over the rule of jurisdictional immunity and immunity from execution presupposes that the person against whom the immunity is asserted does not have other reasonable means of effectively obtaining the protection of the rights guaranteed to him by the ECHR. What matters in this regard is not that an action can be brought in the state of residence of the plaintiffs or that certainty is provided as to the application of the law of that state by the foreign jurisdiction, but that that jurisdiction (or the body of the international organization to which an internal action can be brought, as in the cases submitted to the Supreme Court) provides the guarantees of impartiality and independence of the court.

Download

M.-N.F., I.S. et al. v Kingdom of Belgium, M.L. et al.

On By In First Instance Tribunal
Brussels First Instance Tribunal, M.-N.F., I.S. et al. v Kingdom of Belgium, M.L. et al., Nr. 04/4807/A, 8 December 2010

In the early days of the Rwandan genocide of 1994, an estimated 2.000 men, women and children were massacred when a Belgian contingent of the UNAMIR peacekeeping operation abandoned the school facility where these persons had sought refuge. Several relatives of the victims brought  proceedings against the Belgian government and three former officers of the Belgian ‘KIBAT’ contingent seeking compensation. In its interlocutory judgement, the Court dismisses objections that the claims had expired. In addition, the Court asserts that the decision to evacuate the ‘ETO’ school facility was taken under the auspices of the Belgian government and not UNAMIR. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the defendants could not harbor any illusions as to the fate that awaited the refugees upon the withdrawal of the Belgian peacekeepers, and that the Rwandan refugees had lost a chance of survival as a result of the retreat of KIBAT.

Download

C. RYNGAERT, Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts, 2010, 1604.

Western European Union v S. M.

On By In Supreme Court
Belgian Supreme Court, Western European Union v S. M., Nr. S.04.0129.F, 21 December 2009
ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091221.7

The assertion that immunity is on the same level as the ECHR, which considers access to the courts to be a fundamental right, must be made with the necessary caution. The international organisation is an actor of international law, whereas the proper administration of justice takes place -in principle- within the State. Moreover, international organisations are not party to international instruments such as the ECHR. Of course, this does not mean that the principles contained in international human rights treaties are not applicable to international organisations. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the judge who establishes that a conflict has arisen between two norms of international law that also apply in the internal legal order (access to the courts and immunity) and that are invoked respectively by the parties in the dispute, may not give precedence to one norm over the other.

Download

Secretariat of the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP Group) v B.D.

On By In Supreme Court
Supreme Court, ACP Group v B.D., Nr. C.07.0407.F, 21 December 2009

In its judgment of 21 December 2009, the Belgian Supreme Court rejects an appeal by the Secretariat of the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (the ACP Group), in which it claimed that the Brussels Court of Appeal had disregarded its immunity from execution in contravention of Protocol No. 3 to the Lomé IV Convention. According to the Supreme Court, provisions granting immunity to international organizations normally do not constitute an impermissible restriction of Article 6 ECHR. However, the proportionality of these restrictions must be examined on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the availability of alternative means of redress for the person against whom the immunity is invoked. In the present case, the contested judgment had found that no such alternative means of redress were present. Accordingly, the contested judgment had duly motivated why the immunity from execution as invoked by the ACP Group was incompatible with Article 6.1 ECHR.

Download