Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:07:10.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Western European Union v. Siedler; General Secretariat of the ACP Group v. Lutchmaya; General Secretariat of the ACP Group v. B.D.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

Jan Wouters ,
Cedric Ryngaert  and
Pierre Schmitt
Jan Wouters
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Leuven
Cedric Ryngaert
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Leuven
Pierre Schmitt
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Leuven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 560 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

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.)

References

1 W. Eur. Union [WEU] v. Siedler, Cour de Cassation [Cass.], Dec. 21, 2009, No. S.04.0129.F; Gen. Secretariat of African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States v. Lutchmaya, Cass., Dec. 21, 2009, No. C.03.0328.F; Gen. Secretariat of ACP Group v. B.D., Cass., Dec. 21, 2009, No. C.07.0407.F. Judgments of the Court of Cassation and selected decisions of other Belgian courts are available online at http://www.belgiumlex.be/.

2 The ACP Secretariat is responsible for running the organs of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States [ACP Group]. Though it is only a body of the ACP Group and not an international organization itself, the regime of immunities and privileges established by the Headquarters Agreement Between the Kingdom of Belgium and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, infra note 7, specifically refers to the secretariat, as does the Court of Cassation in both cases analyzed in this report.

3 Siedler v. WEU, Cour du Travail [Cour. Trav.] Bruxelles, Sept. 17, 2003, Journal Des Tribunaux [ J.T.] 2004,617, Int’l L. Domestic Cts. [ILDC] 53 (BE 2003). For the provisions in the Convention and Covenant, see European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 6(1), Nov. 4, 1950, Europ. TS No. 5, 213 UNTS 221; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14(1), Dec. 16, 1966, S. Exec. Rep. NO. 23-102 (1992), 999 UNTS 171.

4 Lutchmaya v. ACP Secretariat, Cour d’Appel [CA] Bruxelles, Mar. 4, 2003, J.T. 2003, 684, ILDC 1363 (BE 2003).

5 Waite v. Germany, 1999-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 393. The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights cited in this case report are available online at http://www.echr.coe.int/.

6 B.D. v. ACP Secretariat (CA Bruxelles, Feb. 27, 2007).

7 See, e.g., Headquarters Agreement, Belg.–ACP Group, Art. 2, Apr. 26, 1993, 2166 UNTS 282.

8 League of Arab States v. TM, Cass., Mar. 12, 2001, J.T. 2001, 610 (Belg.), ILDC 42 (BE 2001) (dismissing the claim that the immunity of international organizations is a general principle of law); Drago v. Int’l Plant Genetic Res. Inst. (IPGRI), Corte Supremadi Cassazione [Cass.], Feb. 19, 2007, No. 3718 (It.), ILDC 827 (IT 2007); Pistelli v. Eur. Univ. Inst., Cass., Oct. 29,2005, No. 20995, paras. 8 – 9 , 3 Guida al Diritto 40 (2006) (It.), ILDC 297 (IT 2005); CEDAO v. BCCI, CA Paris, Jan. 13,1993,120 Journal De Droit International [J.D.I.] 353 (1993) (Fr.) (rejecting customary international law status). In only one case did a national court uphold the immunity of an international organization on the basis of customary international law. A.S. v. Iran-U.S. Claims Trib., Hoge Raad [HR] [Supreme Court], Dec. 20, 1985, 94 ILR 321 (Neth.).

9 See, e.g., Manderlier v. Org. des Nations Unies & État Beige, Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, CA Bruxelles, Sept. 15, 1969, Pasicrisie Belge 1969,246; Broadbent v. Org. of Am. States, 628 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

10 Mégret, Frédéric, The Vicarious Responsibility of the United Nations , in Unintended Consequences Of Peacekeeping Operations 250 (Aoi, Chiyuki, Cedric de, Coning, & Thakur, Ramesh eds., 2007)Google Scholar.

11 Assoc, of Citizens “Mothers of Srebrenica” v. Netherlands & United Nations, Rechtbank [court of first instance] ’s-Gravenhage [The Hague], July 10,2008, No. 295247/HAZA07-2973, at http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BD6796&u_ljn=BD6796; see Wouters, Jan & Schmitt, Pierre, Challenging Acts of Other United Nations’ Organs, Subsidiary Organs, and Officials , in Challenging Acts Of International Organizations Before National Courts 77 (Reinisch, August ed., 2010)Google Scholar.

12 Ryngaert, Cedric, The Immunity of International Organizations Before Domestic Courts: Recent Trends , 7 Int’l Org. L. Rev. 121, 147 (2010)Google Scholar.

13 Waite v. Germany, 1999-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 393,411, para. 68; Beer v. Germany, para. 58, App. No. 28934/95 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 18, 1999) (same).

14 In addition to the two cases involving the ACP Secretariat analyzed in this note, see, for example, Afr. Dev. Bank v. X [Haas], Cass., Jan. 25, 2005, No. 04-41012 (Fr.), ILDC 778 (FR 2005). Yet the French Court did not refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights but considered that the right of access to a court was part of the international public order in France and its violation had resulted in a denial of justice. See also Ryngaert, supra note 12, at 144. The dearth of relevant cases may be explained by the fact that most international organizations do provide for internal dispute settlement mechanisms, however unsatisfactory they may be.

15 The Court noted that the two norms of international law—the immunity of execution and the right of access to courts—were equally applicable in the domestic legal order and the judge was not to permit one norm to prevail over the other. Instead, he or she was required to arbitrate the conflict by balancing the rights of the parties. See Gen. Secretariat of ACP Group v. B.D., Cass., Dec. 21, 2009, No. C.07.0407.F.

16 See, e.g., Sands, Philippe & Klein, Pierre, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions 499 (6th ed. 2009)Google Scholar (1964); Angelet, Nicolas & Weerts, Alexandra, Les immunites des organisations Internationales face à l’article 6 de la Convention europeenne des droits de l’homme , 134 J.D.I. 1 (2007)Google Scholar.

17 See, e.g., Stavrinou v. United Nations & Commander, United Nations Force in Cyprus [UNFICYP], Supreme Court Cyprus, July 17, 1992, Civ. App. No. 8145, ILDC 929 (CY1992) (comment by Aristotle Constantinides). The Cyprus Court did not set aside the immunity of the international organization—the UNFICYP—because the UNFICYP Agreement provided for a special dispute settlement mechanism for local personnel. However, as concluded by Constantinides, the Court did not examine the mechanism, which “was no more than an administrative procedure to be determined by the Commander of the UNFICYP.” Id., para. A6.

On the desirability of inquiring into the effectiveness of such mechanisms, see Reinisch, August, The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of Their Administrative Tribunals , 7 Chinese J. Int’l L. 285, 305 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reinisch, August & Ulf Andreas, Weber, In the Shadow of Waite and Kennedy; The Jurisdictional Immunity of International Organizations, the Individual’s Right of Access to the Courts and Administrative Tribunals as Alternative Means of Dispute Settlement , 1 Int’l Org. L. Rev. 59, 68 (2004)Google Scholar; Ryngaert, supra note 12, at 144.

18 Maarten Vidal, comment, in Siedler, ILDC 53, para. A5 (BE 2003).

19 SA Énergies Nouvelles et Environnement v. Agence Spatiale Européenne, Tribunal de Premiere Instance [Tribunal of First Instance] Bruxelles, Dec. 1, 2005, J.T. 2006, 171, ILDC 1229 (BE 2005).

20 This judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Brussels on March 23, 2011 (SA Énergies Nouvelles et Environnement v. Agence Spatiale Européenne, unpublished). The court indicated that the plaintiff had access to three alternative means of protecting its rights; namely, seeking support from the national delegate, resorting to the ombudsman procedure, and bringing a claim against the German company RWE and/or the Italian company CESI on grounds of civil liability and/or abuse of dominant position. The court did not analyze whether the internal dispute settlement procedure corresponded to due process standards but, rather, concentrated an important part of its decision on analyzing possible claims against the two companies instead of against the international organization.

21 Vidal, supra note 18, para. A4.

22 Drago v. IPGRI, ILDC 827, para. 6.7 (IT 2007) (quoting Art. 17 of the headquarters agreement).

23 Gerechtshof [Court of Appeals] ’s-Gravenhage, Sept. 28, 2007, No. BB5865, 06/1390, at http://jure.nl/bb5865.

24 Gasparini v. Italy, App. No. 10750/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May 12,2009) (in French). For discussion, see Ryngaert, Cedric, The Responsibility of Member States in Connection with Acts of International Organizations: Assessing the Recent Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights , 60 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. (forthcoming 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Ryngaert, supra note 12, at 139.

26 Klabbers, Jan, An Introduction To International Institutional Law 137 & n.27 (2d ed. 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (citing Reinisch, August, Accountability ofInternational Organizations According to NationalLaw , 2005 Neth.Y.B. Int’l L. 119)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Sands & Klein, supra note 16, at 498.

28 Francioni, Francesco, The Rights of Access to Justice Under Customary International Law , in Access to Justice as A Human Right 1 (16 Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, bk. 4, Francioni, Francesco ed., 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the right to an effective remedy, Dinah Shelton states that “[i]t is clear that the obligation to provide effective remedies is an essential component of international human rights law.” Shelton, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law 173 (2d ed. 2005)Google Scholar.

29 See Drago v. IPGRI, ILDC 827 (IT 2007); Pistelli v. Eur. Univ. Inst., supra note 8.

30 Weinstock v. Asian Dev. Bank, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16870 (D.D.C. 2005). But see Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1985); People v. Mark S. Weiner, 378 N.Y.S.2d 966 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1976) (extending U.S. constitutional rights protection, but only to U.S. nationals).

31 OSS Nokalva, Inc. v. Eur. Space Agency, 617 F.3d 756 (3d Cir. 2010).

32 Mendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 510 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Broadbent v. Org. of Am. States, 628 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Boimah v. UN Gen. Assembly, 664 F.Supp. 69 (E.D.N.Y. 1987).