No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Right of access to courts—labor dispute with international organization—immunity from jurisdiction of municipal courts—alternative remedies for employees of international organization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
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.
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999
References
1 See Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Agency, May 30, 1975, 1297 U.N.T.S. 161, reprinted in 14 ILM 855 [hereinafter ESA Convention], The ESA is a successor to the organizations established by the Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Research Organization, June 14, 1962, 528 U.N.T.S. 33, and the Convention for the Establishment of a European Launcher Development Organization, Mar. 29, 1962, 507 U.N.T.S. 177.
2 According to Article IV (1)(a) of Annex I to the ESA Convention, the Agency shall have immunity from jurisdiction and execution, except to the extent that it shall, by decision of the Council, have expressly waived such immunity in a particular case; the Council has the duty to waive this immunity in all cases where reliance upon it would impede the course of justice and it can be waived without prejudicing the interests of the Agency. See ESA Convention, supra note 1, at 199.
3 Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, App. No. 26083/94, Eur. Comm’n H.R. (Dec. 2, 1997) available at <http://194.250.50.201/eng/26083R31.E.html> (visited Nov. 3, 1999) [hereinafter Report].
4 Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, App. No. 26083/94, Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 50 (Feb. 18, 1999) available at <http://www.dhcour.coe.fr/hudoc> (visited Nov. 3, 1999) [hereinafter Judgment], relying on Golder v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A no. 18) at para. 36 (Feb. 21, 1975), and the recent Osman v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. at para. 136 (Oct. 28, 1998). R.J.D. 1998-VIII, 3124–3213.
5 Judgment, supra note 4, at para. 58.
6 See Osman, supra note 4, at para. 147; Fayed v. United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A no. 294) at para. 65 (Sept. 21, 1994).
7 Judgment, supra note 4, at para. 63.
8 Id. para. 67.
9 Id. para. 68.
10 Regulation 33 Chapter VIII ESA Staff Regulations, (on file with author).
11 Case 29/69, Stauder v. City of Ulm, Sozialamt, 1969 ECR 419.
12 Case 44/79, Liselotte Hauer v. Rheinland-Pfalz, 1979 ECR 3727.
13 Case 4/73, Nold v. Commission, 1974 ECR 491.
14 Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1970 ECR 1125.
15 Stauder, 1969 ECR 419, at para. 7.
16 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970 ECR 1125, at 1134.
17 Nold, 1974 ECR 491, at 507.
18 App. No. 12516/86, 58 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 119 (1988).
19 “The Commission notes that it is in accordance with international law that States confer immunities and privileges to international bodies like the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal which are situated in their territory. The Commission does not consider that such a restriction of national sovereignty in order to facilitate the working of an international body gives rise to an issue under the Convention.” Spaans, 58 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep 119, 122.
20 App. No. 10475/83, 39 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 246 (1984).
21 Dyer, 39 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 246, 252.
22 The Court expressly refers to this problem when stating that when States accord immunities to international organizations, “there may be implications as to the protection of fundamental rights.” Judgment, supra note 4, at para. 67.
23 See Olivier Jacot-Guillarmod, L’arbitrage privé face à l’Article 6, § ler de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, in Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension. Studies in Honour of Gérard J. Wiarda 281–95 (1988); Franz Matscher, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und EMRK, in Beiträge zum Internationalen Verfahrensrecht und zur Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Festschrift Nagel 227–45 (1987).
24 Taking into account that parties to arbitral proceedings regularly freely consent to arbitration in advance, the Court held in the Deweer Case, Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A no. 35) at para. 49 (Feb. 27, 1980), that a “waiver” of one’s right of access to court “frequendy encountered … in the shape of arbitration clauses in contracts … does not in principle offend against the Convention.” In X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission said that “the inclusion of an arbitration clause in an agreement between individuals amounts legally to partial renunciation of the exercise of those rights defined by Article 6 (1); [however] nothing in the text of that Article nor of any other Article of the Convention explicidy prohibits such renunciation.” App. No. 1197/61, 5 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. 88, 94 (1962) (Eur. Comm’n H.R.).
25 Internationale HandelsgesellschaftmbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, Federal Constitutional Court, B VerfGE 37, 271, translated in 2 Common Mkt. L. Rep. 540 (1974).
26 In re application of Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft, Federal Constitutional Court, B VerfGE 37, 271, translated in 3 Common Mkt. L. Rep. 225 (1987).
27 M & Co. v. Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 13258/77, 64 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 138 (1990).
28 Judgment, supra note 4, at para. 67.
29 Report, supra note 3, at para. 73.
30 Judgment, supra note 4, at para. 67.
31 In Zafari v. UNRWA, U.N. Administrative Tribunal, 10 November 1990, Judgment No. 461 (unpublished, on file with author), and Salaymeh v. UNRWA, U.N. Administrative Tribunal, 17 November 1990, Judgment No. 469 (unpublished, on file with author), the U.N. Administrative Tribunal extended its jurisdiction to claims brought by local UNRWA staff for whose complaints neidier it nor the Special UNRWA Panel of Adjudicators had competence. The tribunal decided to fill die legal gap that the existing Staff Regulations and Staff Rules had left and, in the latter case, it expressly held that “the Tribunal’s competence is derived from the lack of any jurisdictional procedure laid down by the UNRWA Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable to die Applicant.” Salaymeh, supra, para. III.
32 Report, supra note 3, at para. 2 (dissenting opinion of Mr. G. Ress).
33 Judgment, supra note 4, at para. 72.
34 Report, supra note 3, at para. 80.
35 Id. para. 79.
36 This view seems to be alluded to by the dissenters who found that “the question as to whether and to what extent domestic legislation of this kind can be held against an international organisation, which regularly enacts its own staff regulations, cannot be resolved in removing such matters from judicial review.” Report, supra note 3, at para. 2 (dissenting opinion of Mr. G. Ress).
37 See August Reinisch, International Organizations Before National Courts (forthcoming).
38 Cf. Eckhardt v. EUROCONTROL, Local Court, Sittard, 25 June 1976, 9 Netherlands Y.B. Int’l L. 276, 276–78 (1978), where a Dutch court, although it upheld its jurisdiction over an employment dispute, denied the plaintiff’s request for relief on the ground that the applicable internal law of the organization did not provide for it. Also, the Belgian case of Devos v. Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and Belgium, Court of Cassation, 13 November 1985, Pasicrisie Beige (1986) 1,303, reprinted in 91 I.L.R. 242, 242–49 (1993) shows that a national court may arrive at a correct legal assessment on the basis of the applicable law without recurring to immunity. It rejected a claim arising under Belgian law as “unfounded since the relations between the parties are not subject to the application of national law.” 91 I.L.R. 242, at 245 (1993).