Author: Lauren Hemelsoet

V. et al v the Holy See

On By In Court of Appeal
Ghent Court of Appeal., V. et al v the Holy See, Nr. 2013/AR/2889, 25 February 2016

Following the 2013 ruling by the Court of First Instance, the Ghent Court of Appeal confirms that the Holy See enjoys immunity from jurisdiction in a case brought by multiple victims of sexual abuse by catholic priests, since the Holy See is expressly recognized by Belgium as a state or at least as a foreign sovereign enjoying the same rights and obligations as a state.
The Court disagrees with the appellants’ argument that the Holy See enjoys state immunity only when acting int its capacity as the government of Vatican City, but not when acting in its capacity as the government of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Court further dismisses the appellants’ argument that the Holy See does not qualify as a state as it does not meet the requirements under Article 1 of the 1993 Montevideo Convention. In particular, the Court emphasizes that the Holy See is recognized ‘de jure’ as a state by Belgium. Moreover, the Holy See, as a governmental body, can claim immunity from jurisdiction based on Article 2 of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, which reflects customary international law.
The Court asserts that the Holy See’s alleged policy errors must be qualified as ‘acta jure imperii’ which are covered by jurisdictional immunity. In this regard, the Court rules that the territorial tort exception in Article 11 of the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity does not apply to ‘acta jure imperii’ and that, moreover, the conditions of that provision are not met. Similarly, the territorial tort exception laid down in Article 12 of the 2004 UN Convention cannot be considered to reflect customary international law with regard to ‘acta jure imperii’, and its conditions are not met in the current case. Finally, the Court dismisses the appellants’ arguments that granting immunity from jurisdiction would breach their right to access to justice as guaranteed under Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

Download

R.J.V.D.B. v Imperial Tomacco Ltd. and Gallagher Ltd.

On By In Supreme Court
Supreme Court, R.J.V.D.B. v Imperial Tobacco Ltd. and Gallagher Ltd, Nr. 14.0414.N, 26 May 2015

In this case, the claimant seeks annulment of a judgment of the Antwerp Court of Appeal, inter alia on the basis of an alleged breach of Article 22(3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). In particular, the claimant argues that a vehicle of the Ivorian embassy in London with a British diplomatic license plate be immune from search and seizure in the context of a criminal investigation in Belgium.  The Supreme Court recalls that Art. 22(3) VCDR regulates mutual obligations between the sending and receiving States. By contrast, neither Article 22(3) nor article 40 VCDR provide immunity from investigation or seizure of a means of transportation of a diplomatic mission that is not accredited in Belgium.

Download

V. et al v the Holy See

On By In First Instance Tribunal
Ghent First Instance Tribunal, V. et al v the Holy See, Nr. 11/2648/A, 1 October 2013

Some 39 plaintiffs who claim to have been victims of sexual abuse as minors by ministers of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium, argue that in addition to the damages stemming from the abuse itself, they also suffered damages due to the church authorities’ year-long refusal or failure to acknowledge and address the problem. The Holy See objects that the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims against it as it enjoys immunity from jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs argue that the Holy See can only enjoy state immunity in its capacity as the government of Vatican City State, but not when it is sued ‘on behalf of the Pope’ in a civil court as the government of the Roman Catholic Church. The Court, however, rejects this argument as it would undo the de facto recognition of the Holy See as foreign sovereign by the Belgian State. The Court, moreover, dismisses the argument by the plaintiffs that the alleged policy errors of the Holy See were ‘acta jure gestionis’ for which it cannot rely on immunity from jurisdiction. The Court also confirms that the invocation of such immunity from jurisdiction does not entail a violation of the plaintiffs’ right of access to justice under the ECHR.

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