Top

Published in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

13. Immunities of International Organizations Before Domestic Courts: Reflections on the Collective Labour Case Against the European Patent Organization

Author : Cedric Ryngaert

Published in: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The Netherlands is home to a substantial number of international organizations, which on the basis of international agreements are entitled to immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement before Dutch courts. This immunity grant has not stopped claimants from suing international organizations in The Netherlands, sometimes successfully. Dutch courts have indeed proved willing to entertain claims that a particular activity of the organization was not necessary for the fulfilment of its functions, or that the organization failed to offer an alternative remedy. In a recent case against the European Patent Organization, a Dutch court dismissed the organization’s immunity on the ground that it failed to offer an alternative remedy and that the impugned substantive violations rose to the level of fundamental rights violations. The author supports this approach, with some reservations, but regrets the quasi-absolute immunity from enforcement which international organizations continue to enjoy.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Jus Cogens in International Investment Law and Arbitration

next chapter Judicial Review on the Island of Saint Martin: An Example for The Kingdom of the Netherlands?

Exceptionally, Dutch courts have been willing to ground an organization’s immunity directly on customary international law, in the absence of headquarters or other international agreement. See A. Spaans v. The Netherlands, Supreme Court, NJ 1986/438, 20 December 1985.

The Court of Appeal was, however, overruled by the Supreme Court, which did grant the organization functional immunity. See Euratom, Supreme Court (criminal case), LJN: BA9173, 13 November 2007 (and the summary of the Court of Appeal’s judgment cited therein).

European Patent Organization v. Stichting Restaurant de la Tour, Court of Appeal The Hague, No. 200.065.887/01, LJN: BR0188, 21 June 2011.

Waite and Kennedy v Germany, ECtHR, No. 26083/94, 18 February 1999, para 68. ‘It should be recalled that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective. This is particularly true for the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial … For the Court, a material factor in determining whether granting [the European Space Agency, an international organization headquartered in Germany] immunity from German jurisdiction is permissible under the Convention is whether the applicants had available to them reasonable alternative means to protect effectively their rights under the Convention.’

Court of Appeal The Hague, No. 01/136, NIPR 2004, No. 268, 13 February 2002; Claimant v. European Patent Office, Supreme Court, No. 08/00118, LJN: BI9632, 23 October 2009.

Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. United Nations, Case No. 10/04437, 13 April 2012, Supreme Court, ILDC 1760 (NL 2012), para 4.3.3; Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. The Netherlands, ECtHR, No. 65542/12, 27 June 2013, para 165. The Court of Appeal, however, did apply Waite and Kennedy. Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. United Nations, Court of Appeal The Hague, Case No. 200.022.151/01, 30 March 2010.

Schrijver 2013; Henquet 2010, 2013; and Dekker and Ryngaert 2011.

European Patent Office v. Stichting Restaurant de la Tour, para 14.

Supreme Court of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:PHR:2009:BI9632, 23 October 2009, para 3.5.

District Court The Hague, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:420, 14 January 2014.

Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015. I have discussed this case with my co-author Frans Pennings in Ryngaert and Pennings 2015a and 2015b.

Article 3(1) of the 1973 Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organization, 1050 UNTS 500 (EPO Protocol); Article 8 of the 1973 Convention on the Grant of European Patents, 1065 UNTS 199 (EPO Convention).

Waite and Kennedy v Germany, para 68.

Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, Directoraat-Generaal Rechtspleging en Rechtshandhaving, Directie Juridische en Operationele Aangelegenheden, Aanzegging ex artikel 3a, tweede lid, van de Gerechtsdeurwaarderswet, 23 February 2015.

Waite and Kennedy, para 68.

1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 UNTS 222 (ECHR).

Supreme Court of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:PHR:2009:BI9632, 23 October 2009, para 3.5. The Court held that the claimants had not established that the ILOAT would decline motivated requests to hold a public hearing (although in practice such hearings were rarely held).

District Court The Hague, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:420, 14 January 2014.

Ibid., para 3.11.

Ibid.

Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015, paras 3.7 and 3.10.

Ibid., para 3.8.

Ibid., para 3.9.

Ibid., para 3.10.

Waite and Kennedy, para 68.

Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015, para 3.10.

Klausecker v. Germany, ECtHR, No. 415/07, 6 January 2015, para 69. ‘Having regard to the importance in a democratic society of the right to a fair trial, of which the right of access to court is an essential aspect, the Court therefore considers it decisive whether the applicant had available to him reasonable alternative means to protect effectively his rights under the Convention.’

Ratner 2015, at 64.

Ibid., at 204. Note that Ratner considered other forms of immunity to be unjust on the ground that they overly restrict the enjoyment of human rights without evidence being offered of such immunities furthering international peace. Ibid., at 411.

Section 29 of the 1946 UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, 1 UNTS 15. This section provides that the UN shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which the UN is a party, but such modes have never been established. In practice, the UN settles disputes arising out of peacekeeping operations administratively, via ex gratia payments or lump sum agreements with host States, without offering judicial guarantees. See Schmalenbach 2006.

Stichting ‘Mothers of Srebrenica’ c.s. tegen de Staat der Nederlanden en de VN, Hoge Raad 13 April 2012, LJN: BW19, paras 4.3.5–4.3.6. For an extensive discussion of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the District Court in this case, see Schrijver 2013.

Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v the Netherlands, ECtHR, No. 65542/12, 27 June 2013, para 164. The Court drew attention to Waite and Kennedy’s enunciation that the absence of an alternative dispute settlement mechanism was only ‘“material factor” in determining whether granting an international organisation immunity from domestic jurisdiction was permissible.’ Ibid., para 163.

Ibid., paras 149 and 165.

The Court finds that since operations established by United Nations Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter are fundamental to the mission of the United Nations to secure international peace and security, the Convention cannot be interpreted in a manner which would subject the acts and omissions of the Security Council to domestic jurisdiction without the accord of the United Nations. Ibid., para 154 (citing its decision in Behrami, in which it refused to hold UN member States responsible for violations committed in the context of UN peace operations). Behrami and Behrami v France and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway, ECtHR, Nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01, 2 May 2007.

Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015, para 3.4.

See for a list of fundamental collective labour rights Articles 1–10 of the 1961 European Social Charter, 529 UNTS 89.

Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015, paras 3.8–3.9. Note that the Court held that in the case, the remedies were indeed manifestly deficient.

Bosphorus v. Ireland, ECtHR, No. 45036/98, 30 June 2005. The case is cited in Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015, para 3.6.

Bosphorus v. Ireland, paras 155–156.

See notably Chapman v. Belgium, ECtHR, No. 39619/06, 5 March 2013 (regarding the compatibility with Article 6 ECHR of the procedures before the NATO Appeals Board, made available to NATO employees). For a discussion of relevant other cases, see Ryngaert 2010.

Court of Appeal The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:255, 17 February 2015, para 3.11.

See in this sense indeed Lutchmaya v. General Secretariat of the ACP, Court of Cassation (Belgium), Case No. C07 0407F, International Law in Domestic Courts, OUP, 1576 BE 2009, paras 30 and 32. The case avers that applying Article 6 ECHR in immunity cases involving international organizations comes down to balancing two norms, and that Belgium has not committed an internationally wrongful act by acceding to the instrument providing for immunity (the headquarters agreement).

Ibid.

Articles 3a(2) and (5) Gerechtsdeurwaarderswet (Act on Bailiffs).

European Patent Organization v. Stichting Restaurant de la Tour. The Court referred to Article 4(2) of the headquarters agreement concluded between the Netherlands and the OPCW.

Ibid., para 4.

Ibid., para 6.

European Patent Organization v. Stichting Restaurant de la Tour.

Article 3 of the EPO Protocol.

Article 19(c) of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, Doc. A/59/508. The International Court of Justice has confirmed that this cardinal principle constitutes customary international law, although it doubted ‘whether all aspects of Article 19 reflect current customary international law’. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2012, paras 117–118.

For the difficulties of attaching embassy bank accounts, see Ryngaert 2013.

But see AS v. Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Supreme Court, LJN AC9158, 20 December 1985 (conferring immunities on the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, considered as an international organization, on the basis of customary international law).

Claimant v. European Patent Office, Supreme Court, No. 08/00118, LJN BI9632, 23 October 2009, para 3.5.

Dekker I, Ryngaert C (2011) Immunity of international organizations: balancing the organization’s functional autonomy and the fundamental rights of individuals. Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht 138. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 83–109

Henquet T (2010) International organizations in the Netherlands: immunity from the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. Neth Int Law Rev 57:267–284CrossRef

Henquet T (2013) The jurisdictional immunity of international organizations in the Netherlands and the view from Strasbourg. Int Organ Law Rev 10:538–571CrossRef

Ratner S (2015) The thin justice of international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Ryngaert C (2010) Immunity of international organizations before domestic courts: recent trends. Int Organ Law Rev 7:121–148CrossRef

Ryngaert C (2013) Embassy bank accounts and state immunity from execution: doing justice to the financial interests of creditors. Leiden J Int Law 26:73–88CrossRef

Ryngaert C, Pennings F (2015a) Fundamentele arbeidsrechten en immuniteit – de zaak tegen de Europese Octrooi Organisatie. Ned Juristenblad 90:1212–1218

Ryngaert C, Pennings F (2015b) Korte respons op de reactie van Niels Blokker. Ned Juristenblad 90:1837–1838

Schmalenbach K (2006) Third party liability of international organizations: a study on claim settlement in the course of military operations and international administrations. Int Peacekeeping 10:33–51CrossRef

Schrijver N (2013) Srebrenica voorbij. De volkenrechtelijke immuniteit van de Verenigde Naties. In: Handelingen van de Nederlandse Juristenvereniging: Preadviezen immuniteiten. Het recht opzij gezet? 143:211–265

Title: Immunities of International Organizations Before Domestic Courts: Reflections on the Collective Labour Case Against the European Patent Organization
Author: Cedric Ryngaert
Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press
Book: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-113-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-114-2

Copyright Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_13