2. The Italian Corte di Cassazione and the Ferrini and Milde Judgments
The question of war crimes reparation gained relevance and a renewed judicial and political attention in the early 2000s.
12 One of the main actors of this judicial turn has been the Italian Supreme Court (
Corte di Cassazione), which gained international attention with the inauguration, in those years, of a ground-breaking jurisprudence concerning state immunity and gross human rights violations.
The
Corte di Cassazione adopted the well-known
Ferrini judgment in 2004.
13 The procedural history began in September 1998, when Luigi Ferrini instituted proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany before the Tribunal of Arezzo. Ferrini was an Italian national who had been arrested and deported to Germany in 1944 where he had been detained and forced to work in a factory until the end of the war. He was seeking damages for the physical and psychological injuries suffered.
Unsurprisingly, in November 2000, the Tribunal of Arezzo decided that Luigi Ferrini’s claim was inadmissible because Germany, as a sovereign state, was protected by jurisdictional immunity. On the same grounds, the Court of Appeal of Florence dismissed the appeal of the claimant. However, on 11 March 2004, the Italian
Corte di Cassazione quite unpredictably contradicted this well-established line of jurisprudence grounded in international customary law, holding that Italian courts had jurisdiction over the claims for compensation brought against Germany by Luigi Ferrini. The Court argued that state immunity does not apply in circumstances in which the act complained of constitutes an international crime. Assuming the role of an interpreter of international law, the Italian
Corte di Cassazione affirmed: ‘Respect for the inviolable rights of the human person has indeed assumed the value of a fundamental principle of the international legal order (…). The emergence of this principle cannot fail to reflect on the scope of other principles to which this order is traditionally inspired and, in particular, on the “sovereign equality” of States, to which state immunity from foreign civil jurisdiction is linked’. ‘[T]here can be no doubt that the antinomy should be resolved by giving prevalence to the highest-ranking norms’.
14
A few years later, while numerous reparation proceedings were instituted before ordinary Italian courts, the
Corte di Cassazione confirmed the
Ferrini jurisprudence in a number of cases all adjudicated in 2008. The most remarkable of them was surely the
Milde case.
15 Max Josef Milde had been a member of the ‘Hermann Göring’ division of the German armed forces who was charged with participation in massacres committed on 29 June 1944 in Civitella in Val di Chiana, Cornia and San Pancrazio in Italy. The Military Court of La Spezia had sentenced Milde in absentia to life imprisonment and ordered Milde and Germany, jointly and separately, to pay reparation to the successors in title of the victims of the massacre who appeared as civil parties in the proceedings. Germany appealed to the Military Court of Appeals in Rome against that part of the decision which was directed against the German Republic and the Court dismissed the appeal in 2007. The following year, the
Corte di Cassazione rejected Germany’s argument of lack of jurisdiction and confirmed the reasoning it had adopted in
Ferrini: in cases of serious international law crimes, the jurisdictional immunity of states should be set aside. According to the Court, ‘the principle of respect for the “sovereign equality” of States must remain without effects in the event of crimes against humanity (…) whose real substance consists in an abuse of state sovereignty’.
16
In the same year, the
Corte di Cassazione granted an application of exequatur to the Greek courts’ judgments
Prefecture of Voiotia v Federal Republic of Germany concerning Nazi massacres of the Greek civilian population during WWII.
17
3. The ICJ and the Jurisdictional Immunity Judgment
The German reaction was not long in coming. In December 2008, just a few months after the
Milde judgment of the
Corte di Cassazione, the Federal Republic of Germany instituted proceedings before the ICJ against the Italian Republic. According to Germany, Italy through its judicial practice ‘failed to respect the jurisdictional immunity which … [the German state] enjoys under international law’.
18
In the
Jurisdictional Immunities Judgment
, issued in 2012, the ICJ endorsed the German position. In particular, the Court openly contradicted the
Ferrini jurisprudence and the legal argument that a normative hierarchy between peremptory human rights and immunity must lead to setting aside state immunity in domestic litigation dealing with ius cogens violations. The Court stated that ‘under customary international law as it presently stands, a State is not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it is accused of serious violations of international human rights law’.
19 The ICJ grounded this decision on the quite formalistic assumption that the rules of ius cogens and those of state immunity do not conflict because they operate at different levels. The rules of state immunity ‘are procedural in character and are confined to determining whether or not the courts of one State may exercise jurisdiction in respect of another State’,
20 and these procedural immunity rules do not address the question of whether or not the conduct around which the proceedings turn in substance was lawful or unlawful.
21
The ICJ also rejected an additional set of arguments brought by Italy.
22 The Italian ‘last resort’ claim deemed ‘Italian courts (…) justified in denying Germany the immunity to which it would otherwise have been entitled, because all other attempts to secure compensation for the various groups of victims involved in the Italian proceedings had failed’.
23 The ICJ considered, with particular reference to the IMIs status, that it was ‘a matter of surprise—and regret—that Germany decided to deny compensation to a group of victims on the ground that they had been entitled to a status [that of POW] which, at the relevant time, Germany had refused to recognize’.
24 However, the Court could find ‘no basis’ in the state practice conditioning the entitlement of state immunity ‘upon the existence of effective alternative means of securing redress’.
25
In conclusion, the ICJ held that Italy violated the jurisdictional immunity which Germany enjoys under international law by allowing civil claims based on violations of international humanitarian law by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945,
26 and that Italy also committed violations of the immunity owed to Germany by taking enforcement measures against German properties, in particular Villa Vigoni, a German cultural centre on Lake Como.
27
The ICJ judgment received mixed assessments in the academic world, and critical voices seemed to prevail.
28 Commentators found the judgment ‘unsatisfying’,
29 with ‘thin reasoning’,
30 and failing to give ‘an encouraging legal message’, while being ‘not particularly persuasive’, and ‘collaborating in the deconstruction of
jus cogens’.
31 They deplored the ‘excessively formalistic reasoning’ and ‘disputable logic’ of the judgment which was ultimately deemed a ‘missed opportunity’.
32 The fiercest critic sensed an ‘air of strong conservatism’ in the judgment, identified ‘entirely misplaced’ statements, and in the end, found the judgment’s reasoning ‘unacceptable’.
33 In the opposing camp, defenders appraised the ICJ judgment as ‘no surprise, but wise’
34 and as making ‘eminent sense’.
35
Most of the Italian courts immediately acknowledged and complied with the ICJ judgment. They declared all further civil actions brought against Germany with claims for reparation for human rights violations during WWII inadmissible.
36
In order to avoid further civil actions before Italian courts and obey the ICJ Judgment, the Italian Parliament adopted Law No 5/2013 by which Italy ratified the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (UNCSI).
37 The Statute prescribes how Italian courts must react to a judgment of the ICJ declaring the immunity of a foreign state: in proceedings pending a final judgment, the courts are to pronounce
ex officio their lack of jurisdiction.
38 Final judgments can be appealed to be overturned (‘
impugnate per revocazione’).
39
In the meantime, further civil proceedings were nonetheless instituted. The Tribunal of Florence heard three such proceedings. Instead of declaring the complaints inadmissible, the Tribunal stayed the proceedings and addressed a question of constitutionality to the ItCC, concerning the compatibility of Law No 5/2013 with Article 2 and Article 24 of the Italian Constitution.
40 This proceeding gave rise to
Sentenza 238/2014.
4. The Italian Constitutional Court and Sentenza 238/2014
The ItCC’s
Sentenza of 22 October 2014
41 reopened the legal and political debate on the issue of compensation to Italian victims (and their heirs) of Nazi crimes during WWII.
42
Using a different approach from the one adopted by the
Corte di Cassazione in
Ferrini, the Judgment of the ItCC paid lip service to the international law principle of state immunity and to the ‘external’ binding force of ICJ judgments (by virtue of Article 94 of the UN Charter). In
Sentenza 238/2014, the ItCC neatly distinguished the ‘international’ from ‘domestic’ effects of an international norm and the ICJ judgment. The
Corte Costituzionale stated that these international norms and acts could not deploy any internal effect within the Italian legal order, on the basis of a dualistic (‘Triepelian’)
43 understanding of the relationship between domestic law and international law: ‘[T]he incorporation, and thus the application, of the international norm would inevitably be precluded, insofar as it conflicts with inviolable principles and rights’ of the Italian constitutional order.
44
Access to justice, as guaranteed by Article 24 of the Italian Constitution, is both a right and a principle in this sense. The guarantee encompasses the right to appear and to be defended before a court of law in order to protect one’s rights and at the same time, in the Court’s jurisprudence, it is considered among the ‘supreme principles’ of the Italian constitutional order.
The Italian Constitutional Court did not verbally contest the ‘particularly qualified’ ICJ interpretation of the
international customary law regarding immunity.
45 However, the
Corte Costituzionale strongly affirmed its exclusive role as a guarantor of
constitutional principles: ‘It falls exclusively to this Court to ensure the respect of the Constitution and particularly of its fundamental principles’.
46 The
Corte reserved for itself the competence to review the compatibility of the international norm of state immunity from the civil jurisdiction against the benchmark of those (constitutional) principles. It ascertained whether the customary norm of immunity, as interpreted by the ICJ, can be ‘incorporated into the constitutional order’.
47 By framing the issue purely as a matter of ‘incorporation’, the ItCC ‘shields Judgment 238/2014 from the obvious criticism: that the ItCC thought it knew international law better than the ICJ (…). Rather, [the ItCC] claims to know Italian constitutional law better’, as
Christian J. Tams puts it in his chapter. This is a particularly problematic feature of
Sentenza 238/2014. The outcome is that, without openly admitting it, the ItCC reserved for itself the competence to ascertain whether international law ‘is constitutional’ or not.
48
Despite its staunch dualism, the
Corte brought international law into play, by insinuating that the Judgment ‘may also contribute to a desirable—and desired by many—evolution of international law itself’.
49
Sentenza 238/2014 has triggered extensive and heated scholarly commentary. Supporters
50 celebrated the judgment as the ‘best possible solution’
51 which ‘deserves full appreciation’ because it ‘reflects the most cherished values of our civilization’,
52 and it was seen as ‘a lesson in juridical civilization’ and a ‘badge of honour (…) to human rights’.
53 Critics
54 reproached the judgment for ‘seriously imperil[ing] the authority of international law’,
55 as well as for being ‘contradictory’ and a ‘breach of the law’,
56 and they qualified it as a ‘sort of murder of international law through municipal law’, even as a ‘judicial putsch’.
57 Both sides probably agree that it was the ‘judgment of the year’
58 and a ‘historic decision’.
59
Sentenza 238/2014 itself does not yet constitute an internationally wrongful act, because it does not in itself disregard state immunity. What counts are the lower courts’ reconsiderations of the claims and their decisions on holding them admissible by setting aside state immunity. Arguably, the simple reopening of those proceedings, not only decisions on their merits or the execution of a judgment, could already be seen to constitute an internationally wrongful act. The content of Italian state responsibility would then be primarily restitution in kind which in our case would mean to somehow strike down the civil lawsuits against Germany.
Moreover, any execution of a substantive judgment would, in addition, violate post-judgment immunity against execution (
Paolo Palchetti). The relevant parts of the pertinent provision of Article 19 of the UN Convention on State Immunity of 2004 seem to express customary international law.
60 The most attractive German object of execution, the Villa Vigoni, is protected because it serves governmental objectives in a wider sense, including cultural policy, and has a non-commercial character.
61 However, a mortgage on part of this property was registered (again) in 2019, shedding light on the persisting legal insecurity.
62
Sentenza 238/2014 triggered a wave of judgments by several Italian courts.
63 These lower court decisions in Florence (2015 and 2016),
64 Rome (2015),
65 Piacenza (2015),
66 Ascoli Piceno (2016 and 2017),
67 Sulmona (2017),
68 and Fermo (2018)
69 ordered Germany to pay reparation to Italian victims of massacres and deportation. At least 38 cases are currently pending,
70 although Germany has decided to no longer appear before Italian courts. The
Corte di Cassazione ultimately confirmed and reinforced these judgments, echoing the familiar
Ferrini jurisprudence, in a recent case of September 2020.
71
Moreover, just one year before, the same
Corte di Cassazione seemed to have already allowed the execution of some of these lower judgments, at least against those assets of the Federal Republic of Germany that are not devoted to public purposes (
Giovanni Boggero/Karin Oellers-Frahm).
72
As early as 25 November 2014, one month after Sentenza 238/2014, Italy had declared its general recognition of the jurisdiction of the ICJ under the optional clause of Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, potentially inviting a second lawsuit before the ICJ. However, Germany decided against instituting a second proceeding before the ICJ against Italy for violating state immunity and for failing to uphold the 2012 judgment. At the time of writing, the situation does not seem any closer to a solution.