Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:26:52.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity from Execution of Foreign States in Belgian Law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Joe Verhoeven
Get access

Extract

Of all the issues of public international law, the position of foreign states in national courts is the one to which Belgian practice has made the most specific contribution.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 10 , December 1979 , pp. 73 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

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. 30 April 1951, see infra in section 3 p. 73.

2. See De Visscher, P. and Verhoeven, J., “L'immunité de juridiction de l'Etat étranger dans la jurisprudence belge”, in Centres de droit international de l'U.L.B. et de l'U.C.L, L'immunité de juridiction et d'ex'cution des Etats, Actes du colloque conjoint des 30 et 31 Janvier 1969 (Brussels 1971)Google Scholar (hereafter, Actes du colloque conjoint) p. 37 et seq.; Suy, E., “L'immunité des Etats dans la jurisprudence belge”, ZaöRV (1967) p. 660 et seq.Google Scholar

3. Reliance is usually placed on Art. 8 of the Décret of 27 November-1 December 1790, and Art. 537 of the Code civil.

4. See Vauthier, , “L'exécution forcée sur les biens des autorités et services publics”, Rev.dr.int.dr.comp. (1958) p. 394 et seq.Google Scholar

5. Dumon, F., “Le régime de l'immunité d'exécution en droit comparé” in Actes du colloque conjoint, p. 198.Google Scholar

6. F. Dumon, loc.cit. p. 184.

7. See Huberlant, Ch. et Delpérée, F., “Les personnes de droit public bénéficiaires de l'immunité d'exécution”, in Actes du colloque conjoint p. 213 et seq.Google Scholar

8. See Cass., 21 April 1966; RADA, 1966 p. 125 et seq., the observation of M. Flamme.

9. Arts. 14 and 15. See Muuls, F., “Le statut de la Représentation commerciale de l'URSS en Belgique”, JT, 1935, col. 553 et seq.Google Scholar

10. The Commercial Representation did not, however, possess the appropriate legal personality and its goods remained those of the Soviet Union (see the statement of H. Rolin in the Senate of 5 February 1936 in AP, Sén, 1935–36 p. 222).

11. See Laurent, , Droit civil intėrnational, vol. III, 1880 p. 87 et seq.Google Scholar; Leurquin, , “Etudes sur la saisie-arrêt”, 1906 No. 90 p. 73Google Scholar; Pand. belges, “Saisie-arrêt”, 1909 No. 969 et seq.; Poullet, P., Manuel de droit international privé belge (1925) No. 176 et seq.Google Scholar

12. Since seizure in this case concerned a Polish ship, the motive might be explained by the Brussels Convention of 10 April 1926, though the Court did not base itself explicitly on this.

13. This case involved the seizure of films shown by a private company at the request of the State of Liberia on the occasion of an official visit to Europe by its President. Considering that the purpose of these films was to serve the prestige of the state and that this belonged to the sovereign sphere, the films were held to be unseizable.

14. For procedural reasons, the Juge des Saisies of the Brussels Tribunal Civil dismissed a request for a nullity decree made by the State University of Zaire in respect of the seizure of sums belonging to the University deposited in a Belgian bank. The execution had been at the instance of a Belgian national for unpaid teaching services (25 June 1973, Université nationale du Zaire v. Vigneron et S.A. Banque belgo-congolaise, Pas., 1975, III p. 1). Nevertheless, the Public Prosecutor had admitted the State of Zaire's absolute immunity from execution.

15. See E. Suy, loc.cit., ZaöRV (1967) p. 689 et seq.; Van Bogaert, , Volkenrecht (1973) p. 163.Google Scholar

16. The question of immunity from execution was not relevant in this case since it only concerned the validity of a seizure carried out in the Netherlands by the Dutch authorities of possessions belonging to the petitioner.

17. To justify the view that immunity from execution need not affect the competence of the courts, the Cour de Cassation invoked in addition to the position of the Belgian State – which is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, but immune from their enforcement – “the moral authority, in our modern societies, of decisions made by independent judges”. On the justification of absolute immunity from jurisdiction by absolute immunity from execution, see JP Brux., 28 April 1902 supra; civ. Brux. (Réf.), 20 April 1903 supra; Brux., 7 February 1902, Etat néerlandais; v. S.A des Chemins de fer liégeois-limbou rgeois, Pas., 1902, II, 162.

18. See De Paepe, P., Etudes sur la compétence civile à l'égard des Etats étrangers (1894) pp. 1–3, 96 et seq.Google Scholar; G. Spée in BJ, 1876, col. 1441 et seq.

19. Comp. Comm. Anvers, 9 February 1920, and Comm. Anvers (Réf.), 22 November 1946, Etat péruvien et cap. Ilosa v. Soc. Coop. Werf en Vlasnatie et consorts, JPA, 1949 p. 130. The latter case resulted in a decree of nullity in relation to the seizure of a transport ship belonging to the Peruvian navy on the grounds that the commercial court was not competent in view of the character of the dispute. The court did not pronounce on the argument of the, petitioners that any seizure is prohibited in respect of “a ship belonging to a foreign state and used as a warship or at least used for service in the general interest”.

20. See, e.g., Brux. 27 June 1921 and 7 July 1937.

21. See, e.g., the views of Gesché preceding Brux. 27 June 1921 in BJ,. 1922, col. 213; Civ. Anvers, 11 November 1876, Le Gouvernement ottoman v. La Société de Sclessin, BJ, 1876, col. 1467; Brux., 24 May 1933, cited above in section 3.

22. See Brux., 17 January 1938, cited above section 3.

23. See the opinion of Van Hille preceding Civ. Anvers, 8 July 1932, in BJ, 1932, cols. 482–498; compare the opinion of Masson preceding civ. Brux, . (Juge des Saisies), 25 June 1973, n. 14 above.Google Scholar

24. See the views of Van den Branden de Reeth preceding Brux., 24 May 1933, cited above in section 3.

25. See Comm. Anvers, 9 February 1920; Brux., 27 June 1921; Brux., 24 May 1933, cited above in section 3.

26. See Brux., 30 December 1840, cited above in section 3; 22 November 1907, Feldman v. Etat de Bahia, Pas., 1908, II, 55; 27 June 1921, 7 July 1937 and 17 January 1938; Civ. Brux., 30 April 1951, cited above in section 3; Brux., 4 December 1963, S.A. Dhellemes et Masurel v. Banque centrale de Turquie, JT, 1964 p. 44; the opinion of Masson preceding Civ. Brux., 25 June 1973, see n. 14 above; Comm. Brux., 24 March 1951, S.A. Textor et consorts v. Office commercial de Hongrie en Belgique et Republique populaire de Hongrie, JPA, 1952 p. 387.

27. See Gand, 15 March 1879, Rau, Van den Abeele et Cie v. Duruty, BJ, 1880, col. 455.

28. See Comm. Anvers, 8 Feburary 1920; Brux., 7 July 1937 and 17 January 1938, cited above in section 3; Comm. Anvers (Réf.), 22 November 1946, see n. 19 above.

29. Compare Bruxelles, 10 August 1880 and 22 January 1881, Peruvian Guano Company v. Dreyfus Frères et Cie, Pas., 1881, II, 313.

30. See Brux., 27 June 1921 and 24 May 1933; Civ. Anvers, 24 November 1910 and 8 July 1932, cited above in section 3. The argument was dismissed by the Tribunal Civil of Brussels in its judgment of 30 April 1951 on the grounds “that it is generally known that the Belgian State respects decisions at law to the extent of recording ex officio, in the budgets of inferior public institutions, the amount of judgments pronounced against them”.

31. But see the anonymous note under Civ. Anvers, 24 November 1910, in Pas., 1911, III, 104.

32. Compare Civ. Brux., 15 March 1958, JT, 1958, 409.

33. Compare on this question Brux., 27 June 1921 and 7 July 1937; Civ. Anvers, 8 July 1932, cited above in section 3.

34. See E. Suy, loc.cit., ZaöRV (1967) p. 690.