Category: Supreme Court

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

League of Arab States v T. M.

On By In Supreme Court
Belgian Supreme Court, League of Arab States v T.M., Nr. S.99.0103.F/1, 12 March 2001
ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010312.8

The Supreme Court ruled that international norms (in casu the immunity from jurisdiction of an international organisation) can only be part of the internal legal order once they bind the Belgian state. In this case, although there was a headquarters agreement between Belgium and the League of Arab States, this agreement had not (yet) been ratified by the Federal Parliament (Chamber of Representatives). The Belgian Constitution states in art. 167 that treaties only come into effect after they have received the assent of the Chamber of Representatives. Although the Community Parliaments had already accepted the ratification, this was not yet the case for the federal Parliament. Consequently, the immunity plea was rejected, since no rights could be derived from a ‘treaty’ that was not ratified by the federal parliament. Rights could not be derived from a treaty that did not meet the (full) requirements of ratification. The League made another attempt by referring to the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations or between International Organisations to support the immunity exception. This treaty, however, still lacked the number of ratifications required for its entry into force. Also, the reasoning of the League that the immunity of international organisations would constitute a general principle of law was not accepted.

Download