Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:22:33.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Andrea Bianchi
Andrea Bianchi*
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
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 99 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 242 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

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 Ferrini v. Repubblica Federale di Germania (Trib. Arezzo Nov. 3, 2000). Since Italy has no foreign sovereign immunity statute, courts make direct application of customary international law under Article 10 of the Constitution to settle disputes involving state immunity claims.

2 Ferrini v. Repubblica Federale di Germania (Corte app. Firenze Jan. 14, 2002).

3 Ferrini v. Repubblica Federale di Germania (Cass. Mar. 11, 2004) (Sez. Un.). The case has been published in 87 Rivista di Diritto internazionale 539 (2004), from which the page numbers for the citations have been taken. English translations from the case are those of the author.

4 Article 10 provides: “The Italian juridical order conforms to the generally recognized norms of international law “ Article 24 provides: “Everyone can take judicial action for the protection of individual rights and legitimate interests. . . . “ These translations are taken from 9 Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Albert, P. Blaustein & Gilbert, H. Flanz eds., 1971)Google Scholar (Release 2003-8).

5 A different view is presented in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 124 S.Ct. 2240 (2004), which is discussed in a case report by Charles Brower II at 99 AJIL 236 (2005).

6 In this context, however, it should be noted that the UN General Assembly just adopted the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, GA Res. 59/38, annex (Dec. 2, 2004). See David, P. Stewart, The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 99 AJIL 194 (2005)Google Scholar.

7 87 Rivista di diritto internazionale at 544.

8 See Presidenza Consiglio Ministri v. Dusan Markovic (Cass.June 5, 2002), in 2003 Corriere Giuridico 635-36.

9 87 Rivista di diritto internazionale at 544.

10 Id. at 545.

11 See also Agreement Concerning the Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future,” July 17, 2000, U.S.-FRG, 39 ILM 1298 (2000).

12 Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 11/2000 (Hellenic Sup. Ct. May 4, 2000). This Supreme Court judgment is discussed in a case report by Gavouneli, Maria and Bantekas, Elias at 95 AJIL 198 (2001); The trial court’s judgment is discussed by Elias Bantekas CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 92 id. 765 (1998).

13 87 Rivistadi diritto internazionale at 546. According to the Court, only explicit action ascertained in casu can amount to a waiver.

14 The Commission maintains an electronic archive on state responsibility at <http://www.un.org/law/ilc/archives/statresp.htm>.

15 87 Rivista di diritto internazionale at 547.

16 Id.

17 Decided Nov. 21, 2001, the case has been reprinted in 123 ILR 24.

18 See Prosecutor v. Furundzija, No. IT-95-17/1-T, para. 155 (Dec. 10, 1999), 121 ILR 214.

19 Mr. Ferrini was transported from Italy, where he had been apprehended, to Germany; part of the tortious conduct therefore occurred in the forum state.

20 See 28 USC § 1605(a)(7) (2000).

21 Litigation under section 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act has been regularly reported in the journal. See Murphy, Sean, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 96 AJIL 463 & 964 (2002)Google ScholarPubMed; 97 id. at 187 & 966 (2003); 98 id. at 349 (2004).

22 87 Rivista di diritto internazionale at 550. The Court did not seem to be aware of the International Court of Justice’s 2002 judgment in Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Bern. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ REP. 3 (Feb. 14).

23 See Vicki, C. Jackson, Comparative Constitutional Federalism and Transnational Judicial Discourse, 2 Int’l L. Const. L. 91 (2004)Google Scholar. U.S. courts and particularly the Supreme Court do not seem willing, for the time being, to join this transnational judicial dialogue. See Bianchi, Andrea, United States Courts and International Law: The Myth of Lohengrin Revisited, 15 Eur. J. Int’l L. 751 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Besides the well-known leading cases Nelson v. Saudi Arabia, 507 U.S. 349 (1993), and Al-Adsani v. Kuwait, 107 ILR 536 (Eng. C.A. 1996), see, most recently, Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Ontario Ct. App. June 30, 2004), at <http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/>, and Jones v. Ministry of the Interior (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) (Eng. C.A. Oct. 28, 2004), at <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1394.html>.

25 See supra note 12 and accompanying text.

26 All the more so when one realizes that both courts’ decisions were grounded directly on the interpretation of customary international law via the operation of constitutional law provisions that make it possible for each of the two courts in both countries to apply customary law directly.

27 See Bianchi, Andrea, L’immunite des Etats et les violations graves des droits de l’homme: lafonction de l’interprète dans la determination du droit international, 108 Revue Générals De Droit International Public 63 (2004)Google Scholar (developing further the stance originally taken in Denying State Immunity to Violators of Human Rights, 46 Austrian J. Pub. Int’l. L. 195 (1994)Google Scholar) and references therein contained.

28 See the dissenting opinion of Judges Rozakis and Caflisch (joined by Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto, and Vajić) in Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.Nov. 21, 2001), 123 ILR 24.

29 On the unsuitability of this distinction, see Higgins, Rosalyn, The Role of Domestic Courts in the Enforcement of International Human Rights: The United Kingdom, in Enforcing International Human Rights Before Domestic Courts 37, 54 (Conforti, Benedetto & Francesco, Francioni eds., 1997)Google Scholar.

30 See, e.g., Jones v. Ministry of the Interior (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), para. 32 (Q.B. July 30, 2003 (per Whitaker, Master)).

31 This approach, while blurring the distinction between lex lata and lex ferenda, has the merit of acknowledging the law’s uncertainty on this particular point and of fostering interpretive solutions based on the systemic consideration of the international legal order. Accord Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It 7 (1994)Google Scholar: “Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the policy-directed choice can properly be made.”

32 87 Rivistadi diritto internazionale at 545. The term “components” has no established meaning in international law, and the Court left it unqualified. Presumably, the Court meant to refer to various actors of international law, including states and—from what can be inferred generally from the judgment—also individuals.

33 See Article 41(2) of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on state responsibility: “No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of Article 40 [that is, “a serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law], nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.” On the articles see Crawford, James, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text, and Commentaries (2002)Google Scholar.

34 See Lee, M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights,= and Jus Cogens: A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Argument, 96 AJIL 741 (2003)Google Scholar.

35 Zarbiev, Fouad, Quelques observations sur le traitement de l’exception d’immunité juridictionnelle de l’Etat étranger par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, 59 Revue Trimestrielle Des Droits De L’Homme 621, 641 (2004)Google Scholar.

36 See Gamal, Moursi Badr, State Immunity: An Analytical and Prognostic View 9–62 (1984)Google Scholar (reviewing the evolution of the rule in historical perspective); see also Byers, Michael, Custom, Power, and the Power of Rules: Customary International Law from an Interdisciplinary Perspective, 17 Mich. J. Int’l L. 109, 170 (1995)Google Scholar.

37 See the 2003 ruling of the German Federal Supreme Court in the Distomo Massacre Case (Greek Citizens v. Federal Republic of Germany), 40ILM 1027, in which the Court refused to recognize the Greek judgment, see supra note 12 and accompanying text, awarding damages against the Federal Republic of Germany for war crimes.

38 See Bianchi, Andrea, Serious Violations of Human Rights and Foreign States’ Accountability, in Man’s Inhumanity to Man 149, 178–81 (Lai Chand, Vohrah et al. eds., 2003)Google Scholar.

39 See Sassoli, Marco, L’arrêt Yerodia: quelques remarques sur une affaire au point de collision entre les deux couches du droit international, 106 Revue Générale De Droit International Public 791 (2002)Google Scholar.

40 See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 ((Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ REP. 3 (Feb. 14), Sep. Op. Higgins, Kooijmans, & Buergenthal, JJ., para. 75.

41 One may find it of interest to contrast the views expounded in this decision with those expressed in Fox, Hazel, The Law of State Immunity 315-22, 517-40 (2002)Google Scholar.