Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T19:10:18.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY v ITALY) JUDGMENT OF 3 FEBRUARY 2012

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

J Craig Barker
J Craig Barker*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, University of Sussex, J.C.Barker@sussex.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The vexed question of State immunity and the extent and application thereof has once again found its way to the International Court of Justice (the Court) in the form of the Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy).1 On this occasion, the precise question concerned the so-called ‘territorial tort exception’ to State immunity and involved an assessment of the immunity to be granted to Germany, by Italy, in relation to compensation claims brought in Italy by Italian claimants against German armed forces and the organs of the German Reich during the Second World War.2

Information

Type
Current Developments: Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 741 - 752
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy) ICJ Judgment of 3 February 2012 (hereinafter the ‘Judgment’).

2 The case was initiated by Germany on 23 December 2008. A counter-claim by Italy, alleging a failure by Germany to make reparations to Italian victims of gross violations of international humanitarian law, was declared inadmissible by the Court in its Order of 6 July 2010. On 13 January 2011, Greece applied to intervene in the case, but not as a party in terms of arts 62, 83 and 84 of the ICJ Statute. Neither Germany nor Italy objected and Greece's intervention in the proceedings was authorized by Order of 4 July 2011.

3 Judgment para 21.

4 ibid para 22.

5 ibid para 23.

6 ibid paras 24 and 25.

7 ibid para 26.

8 According to art 77, the property of Italy and Italian nationals was no longer to be treated as enemy property (para 1); identifiable Italian property was to be eligible for restitution (para 2). However, according to para 4, Italy agreed that: ‘Without prejudice to these and to any other dispositions in favour of Italy and Italian nationals by the Powers occupying Germany, Italy waives on its own behalf and on behalf of Italian nationals all claims against Germany and German nationals outstanding on May 8, 1945, except those arising out of contracts and other obligations entered into, and rights acquired, before September 1, 1939. This waiver shall be deemed to include all debts, all inter-governmental claims in respect of arrangements entered into in the course of the war, and all claims for loss or damage arising during the war.’

9 Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy) Order of 6 July 2010. ICJ Rep 2010, 310 (hereinafter Counter-Claim Order). See especially paras 27–31. See also the Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Keith and Greenwood, ibid 323, at paras 11–15.

10 The importance of the development of ‘new situations’ arose from the fact that the Court's jurisdiction in relation to the Italian counter-claim was based on art 1 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957 which provided for the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to matters of public international law but which was limited in terms of art 27(a) of the Convention to ‘disputes relating to facts or situations prior to the entry into force of [the] Convention’. The Convention entered into force as between Germany and Italy on 18 April 1961.

11 Counter-Claim Order paras 32–33.

12 Judgment para 27.

13 Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany, Decision No 5044/2004 (Rivista di diritto internazionale, vol 87, 2004, 539; International Law Reports (ILR), vol 128, 658).

14 Judgment para 27.

15 Giovanni Mantelli and others (Italian Court of Cassation, Order No 14201 (Mantelli) Foro italiano, vol 134, 2009, I, 1568), and Liberato Maietta (Order No 14209 (Maietta) revisita di dritto internazionale, vol 91, 2008, 86). See Judgment para 28.

16 ibid para 30.

17 Prefecture of Voiotia v Federal Republic of Germany, Case No 11/2000 (ILR vol 129, 513).

18 Judgment para 30.

19 Kalogeropoulou and others v Greece and Germany, App No 59021/00, Decision of 12 December 2002, ECHR Reports 2002-X, 417; ILR vol 129, 537.

20 Greek Citizens v Federal Republic of Germany. Case No III ZR 245/98, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 2003, 3488; ILR vol 129, 556.

21 Foro italiano, vol 133, 2008, I, 1308.

22 Rivista di diritto internazionale, vol 92, 2009, 594.

23 Judgment para 35.

24 Decree-Law No 63 of 28 April 2010, Law No 98 of 23 June 2010 and Decree-Law No, 216 of 29 December 2011. See Judgment para 36.

25 Judgment paras 15, 16, 17 and 37.

26 ibid para 53.

27 ibid para 54.

28 ibid paras 55 and 56.

29 ibid para 58.

30 ibid paras 59–61.

31 ibid para 61.

32 ibid para 61.

33 ibid para 62.

34 ibid para 64.

35 ibid para 65.

36 ibid para 67.

37 ibid para 69.

38 ibid para 71.

39 Bassionni Amrane v John, Gazette des Tribunaux mixtes d'Egypte, January 1934, 108; Annual. Digest, vol 7, 187.

40 S.A. Eau, gaz, électricité et applications v Office d'Aide Mutuelle, Cour d'Appel, Brussels, Pasicrisie belge, 1957, vol 144, 2nd part, 88; ILR, vol 23, 205.

41 Immunity of the United Kingdom, Court of Appeal of Schleswig, Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, vol 7, 1957, 400; ILR, vol 24, 207.

42 United States of America v Eemshaven Port Authority, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2001, No 567; ILR, vol 127, 225.

43 Allianz Via Insurance v United States of America (1999), Cour d'Appel, Aix-en-Provence, 2nd Chamber, judgment of 3 September 1999, ILR, vol 127, 148.

44 FILT-CGIL Trento v United States of America, Italian Court of Cassation, Rivista di diritto internazionale, vol 83, 2000, 1155; ILR, vol 128, 644.

45 Littrell v United States of America (No 2), Court of Appeal, [1995] 1 WLR 82; ILR, vol 100, 438; Holland v Lampen-Wolfe, House of Lords [2000] 1 WLR 1573; ILR, vol 119, 367.

46 McElhinney v Williams, [1995] 3 Irish Reports 382; ILR, vol 104, 691.

47 McElhinney v Ireland [GC], App No 31253/96, Judgment of 21 November 2001, ECHR Reports 2001-XI, 39; ILR, vol 123, 73, para. 38.

48 Judgment para 73.

49 ibid para 73.

50 Case No 02-45961, 16 December 2003, Bull. civ., 2003, I, No 258, 206 (the Bucheron case); No 03-41851, 2 June 2004, Bull. civ., 2004, I, No 158, 132 (the X case) and No 04-47504, 3 January 2006 (the Grosz case). The ECtHR held that France had not contravened its obligations under the ECHR in Grosz v France (App No 14717/06, Decision of 16 June 2009 insofar as the French courts had ‘given effect to an immunity required by international law’. Judgment, para 73.

51 Case No Up-13/99, Judgment of 8 March 2001.

52 Natoniewski v Federal Republic of Germany. Judgment of 29 October 2010, Polish Yearbook of International Law, vol XXX, 2010, 299.

53 Botelberghe v German State. See Judgment, para 74.

54 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of Leskovac, 1 November 2001.

55 Barreto v Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Court, Rio de Janeiro, Judgment of 9 July 2008.

56 Judgment para 76.

57 Case No 6/2002. ILR, vol 129, 525.

58 ibid para 77.

59 ibid para 80.

60 ibid para 82.

61 ibid para 83.

62 Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran, Court of Appeal of Ontario, (2004) Dominion Law Reports (DLR) 4th Series, vol 243, 406; ILR, vol 128, 586.

63 Case No 02-45961, 16 December 2003, Bull. civ., 2003, I, No 258, 206 (the Bucheron case); No 03-41851, 2 June 2004, Bull. civ., 2004, I, No 158, 132 (the X case) and No 04-47504, 3 January 2006 (the Grosz case).

64 Case No Up-13/99, Constitutional Court of Slovenia.

65 Fang v Jiang, High Court, [2007] New Zealand Administrative Reports (NZAR), 420; ILR vol 141, 702.

66 Natoniewski, Supreme Court, 2010, Polish Yearbook of International Law, vol XXX, 2010, 299.

67 Jones v Saudi Arabia, House of Lords [2007] 1 AC 270.

68 [2000] 1 AC 147.

69 Judgment para 87.

70 ibid para 88.

71 ibid para 89.

72 App No 35763/97, Judgment of 21 November 2001, ECHR Reports 2001-XI, 101, para. 61; ILR, vol 123, 24.

73 App No 59021/00, Decision of 12 December 2002, ECHR Reports 2002-X, 417; ILR, vol 129, 537.

74 Having reached this conclusion in the present case, the Court was, nevertheless, keen to point out, as it does, the limitations of its decision in terms of its impact on other aspects of State immunity, particularly in relation to issues of criminal immunity involving individuals, as opposed to the State noting specifically that: ‘In reaching this conclusion, the Court must emphasize that it is addressing only the immunity of the State itself from the jurisdiction of the courts of other States; the question of whether, and if so to what extent, immunity might apply in criminal proceedings against an official of the State is not in issue in the present case’. ibid para 91.

75 The Court specifically referred to the prohibition of ‘the murder of civilians in occupied territory, the deportation of civilian inhabitants to slave labour and the deportation of prisoners of war to slave labour’.

76 Judgment paras 92–97.

77 ibid para 94.

78 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006, 6, paras 64 and 125.

79 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 3, paras 58 and 78.

80 ibid para 96.

81 ibid para 100.

82 ibid para 101.

83 ibid para 104.

84 ibid para 38.

85 ibid para 113.

86 ibid paras 119–120.

87 ibid paras 127–128.

88 ibid para 131.

89 Judge Conçado Trindade Dissenting Opinion to the Judgment of the Court [hereinafter 2012 Judgment Dissent] para 289.

90 ibid paras 32–40. This approach, according to the learned Judge, was echoed in the work of learned institutions of international law ibid paras 41–52.

91 ibid para 30.

92 ibid paras 60–83, especially paras 73–74.

93 ibid.

94 2012 Judgment Dissent para 290.

95 ibid para 293.

96 ibid, para 294.

97 See the United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property 2004, Article 5. See, more generally, Fox, H, The Law of States Immunity (OUP 2002)Google Scholar ch 3, especially 52–3.

98 UN Convention Articles 10–17. See also Fox (n 97) 272–322.

99 2012 Judgment Dissent para 288.

100 ibid para 91.