Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:31:42.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STATE AND DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS: EUROPEAN LAW TO THE RESCUE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Richard Garnett
Richard Garnett*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne; Consultant, Herbert Smith Freehills, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The issues of State and diplomatic immunity in cases involving persons employed by foreign States in embassies or consulates or engaged directly by diplomats remain controversial. The focus of this article is on recent developments in European law, in particular under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Brussels I Regulation and the Charter of the European Union, the effect of which has been to enhance the rights of employees of foreign States. Analysis is also made of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property and the current domestic practice of States with the aim of identifying the present international law standard on State immunity and embassy and consular employment. Employees of diplomats, however, remain inadequately protected and this article considers possible strategies for improving their position.

Keywords

diplomatic immunityemploymentEuropean lawlabourState immunity
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 783 - 827
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2015 

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 See eg Garnett, R, ‘The Precarious Position of Embassy and Consular Employees in the United Kingdom’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 705CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pingel, I, ‘Immunité de Juridiction et Contrat de Travail: du Nouveau’ (2003) Journal du Droit International 1115Google Scholar.

2 <http://hub.coe.int/>.

3 Golder v UK (1975) 57 ILR 200.

4 (2002) 34 EHRR 12.

5 See Garnett (n 1) 707 quoted in Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 47.

6 Fogarty v The United Kingdom para 37; see also the Concurring Judgment of Judges Caflisch, Costa and Vajic.

7 ibid, para 38.

8 The reference in subpara (2)(b)(iv) to immunity being conferred in an action brought by ‘any other person enjoying diplomatic immunity’ is best understood as not embracing a mission's administrative or technical staff even though under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, such persons may be entitled to claim diplomatic immunity. Any other interpretation would fatally undermine the Convention's intended policy of restrictive immunity for embassy and consular employment expressed in art 11. See J Foakes and R O'Keefe, ‘Article 11’ in R O'Keefe and C Tams (eds), The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (OUP 2013) 201–2 cited in Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 38.

9 (1991) II(2) YBILC 13, 42–43.

10 ibid 34.

11 Foakes and O'Keefe (n 8) 190, emphasis added.

12 Gaja, Simmer and Economides.

13 (1999) I YBILC para 33.

14 (A/C.6/55/L.12 10 November 2000).

15 G Hafner, ‘United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property’ in Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public and International Law (OUP 2010) paras 26–27.

16 Sanchez-Ramirez v The Consulate General of Mexico 2013 US Dist Lexis 109888 (ND Cal) (aff'd 9th Cir CA May 18 2015).

17 Hijazi v Permanent Mission of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations 403 Fed Appx 631 (2nd Cir 2010).

18 Eringer v Principality of Monaco 533 Fed Appx 703 (9th Cir 2013).

19 El-Hadad v United Arab Emirates 496 F 3d 658 (DC Cir 2007).

20 Holden v Canadian Consulate 92 F 3d 918 (9th Cir 1996).

21 Governor of Pitcairn v Sutton [1995] 1 NZLR 426, 436.

22 See, for supporting views, Foakes and O'Keefe (n 8) 198–200; U Köhler, ‘Contracts of Employment under the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property’ (2004) 9 Austrian Review of International and European Law 191, 207; and H Fox and P Webb, The Law of State Immunity (3rd edn, OUP 2013) 448–9 although note that these last mentioned authors also suggest that art 11(2), when read as a whole, ‘largely reinstates the absolute [immunity] doctrine’; 437, 443.

23 Foakes and O'Keefe, ibid 193.

24 See the Understanding with respect to art 11 in Annex to the Convention.

25 Hafner (n 15) para 27.

26 Foakes and O'Keefe (n 8) 205; Garnett (n 1) 717.

27 Shyam Lal v Union of India [2010] INDLHC 4446 (16 September 2010) (High Court of Delhi).

28 ibid, para 11.

29 (2010) 51 EHRR 15.

30 Para 55.

31 ibid, para 57.

32 ibid, para 63.

33 See Fogarty v The United Kingdom para 37.

34 Cudak v Lithuania para 66.

35 ibid.

36 Cudak v Lithuania para 69.

37 ibid, para 70

38 This was the description given by the English Court of Appeal in Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 30. Commentators have been similarly critical see, for example, Bederman, D, ‘Sabeh El Leil v France’ (2012) 106 AJIL 125, 129–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sanger, A, ‘The State Immunity Act and the Right of Access to a Court’ (2014) 73 CLJ 1, 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox and Webb (n 22) 417; and also the comments of Advocate General Mengozzi in Mahamdia v Algeria <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=123085&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1758574> paras 23–24, 26.

39 Asylum Case ICJ Rep 1950, 266, 277.

40 Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 29.

41 ibid.

42 Ziemele, I, ‘Customary International Law in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights: The Method’ (2013) 12 Law and Practice of International Tribunals 243, 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 29.

44 [2015] EWCA Civ 33.

45 S v India (1984) 82 ILR 13 (Swiss Federal Tribunal).

46 Landano v United States [1988] Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Arbeitsrechts 424.

47 R v Iraq 13 December 1994 (Swiss Federal Tribunal) cited in Council of Europe and G Hafner et al. (eds), State Practice Regarding State Immunities (Martinus Nijhoff 2006) 192.

48 Driver X v Kuwait [2003] Jahrbuch des Schweizerischen Arbeitsrechts 468 (Labour Court of Geneva)

49 British Embassy Driver Case (1978) 65 ILR 20 (Superior Provincial Court of Vienna).

50 (1991) 2 Journal du Droit International 441.

51 RW v Embassy of X (Supreme Court of Austria) 21 November 1990, cited in Council of Europe and Hafner et al. (n 47) 179.

52 Rousseau v Republic of Upper Volta (1983) 82 ILR 118 (Brussels Labour Tribunal).

53 ibid.

54 Queiros Magalhaes Abrantes v Republic of Portugal (1992) 27 Revue Belge de Droit International 698 (Brussels Labour Court).

55 Sawas v Saudi Arabia ILDC 1146 (BE 2007) (Brussels Labour Court).

56 MK v Turkey (1984) 94 ILR 350 (Sub District Court of The Hague).

57 X v Morocco ILDC 548 (NL 2007) (Netherlands Court of Appeal).

58 Compare Van Hulst v United States of America [1990] NYIL 379 (Supreme Court of The Netherlands).

59 Australian Law Reform Commission, Report No. 24 (1984) para 100.

60 Barrandon v USA 116 ILR 622 (1998).

61 Coco v Argentina 113 ILR 491 (1996).

62 Saignie v Embassy of Japan 113 ILR 492 (1997).

63 ibid 493.

64 Conrades v United Kingdom 65 ILR 205 (Hanover Labour Court).

65 114 ILR 502 (Federal Labour Court 3 July 1996).

66 Muller v United States Of America 114 1LR 512 (Regional Labour Court of Hesse 11 May 1998).

67 EBM v Equatorial Guinea (10 February 1986) extracted in Sancho, A Chueca and Diez-Hochleitner, J, ‘La Admision de La Tesis Restrictiva de Las Inmunidades del Estado Extranjero en La Reciente Practica Espanola’ (1988) 40 Revista Espanola de Derecho Internacional 7, 10Google Scholar.

68 Abbott v Republic of South Africa (1 December 1986) extracted in ibid, 12.

69 127 ILR 310 (13 November 2002).

70 AA v Austrian Embassy ILDC 826 (PT 2007) (Supreme Court of Portugal).

71 A v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (2004) (Court of Appeal of Portugal) cited in Council of Europe and Hafner et al. (n 47) 190.

72 See Maciej K v Embassy of a Foreign State (Supreme Court of Poland 2000) cited in Council of Europe and Hafner et al. (n 47) 189 and State Immunity in Labour Law Matters Case (Supreme Court of Czech Republic) (2008) 142 ILR 206.

73 Brazil v De Vianna Dos Campos Riscado ILDC 2037 (IT 2012); see also Vespignani v Bianchi (Court of Cassation 22 July 2004) extracted in (2005) 15 Italian Yearbook of International Law 317–18.

74 Brazil v De Vianna Dos Campos Riscado ILDC 2037 (IT 2012); British Consulate in Milan v Papa (Court of Cassation 27 May 1999).

75 Atteritano, A, ‘Immunity of States and Their Organs: The Contribution of Italian Jurisprudence over the Past Ten Years’ (2009) 19 Italian Yearbook of International Law 31, 44Google Scholar; Pavoni, R, ‘La Jurisprudence Italienne Sur I'Immunité Des Etats Dans Les Différends En Matière De Travail: Tendances Récents A La Lumière De La Convention Des Nations Unies’ (2007) 53 Annuaire Français de Droit International 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Hanna Heusala v Republic of Turkey cited in Council of Europe and Hafner et al. (n 47) 181.

77 Ricardo v Republic of Venezuela (District Court of Helsinki) cited in ibid 182.

78 [2015] EWCA Civ 33.

79 [1992] IR 484; this case was followed in Geraghty v Embassy of Mexico [1998] ELR 310 (secretary) (Irish Employment Appeals Tribunal) and Italian Embassy v Damery (administrative assistant) (Irish Labour Court 14 December 2004).

80 Asha Abdullahi Asam v Embassy of the Republic of Kenya (UD2163/2011) <http://www.labourlawnetwork.eu/national_labour_law_latest_country_reports/national_court_rulings/court_decisions/prm/64/v__detail/id__3317/category__17/index.html>.

81 92 F 3d 918 (9th Cir 1996).

82 496 F 3d 658 (DC Cir 2007).

83 Ashraf-Hassan v Embassy of France in the US 40 F Supp 3d 94, 102–103 (DDC 2014) (aff'd DC Cir CA 1 May 2015).

84 Hijazi v Permanent Mission of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations 403 Fed Appx 631 (2d Cir 2010).

85 Sanchez-Ramirez v The Consulate General of Mexico 2013 US Dist Lexis 109888 (ND Cal) (aff'd 9th Cir CA May 18 2015).

86 Note that a similar approach may possibly be adopted in Israel where it is provided that an employee may sue his or her foreign state employer ‘where the cause of action is a commercial transaction’: Foreign States Immunity Law 2008 section 4(c).

87 Robinson v Kuwait Liaison Office (1997) 145 ALR 68.

88 Thomas and Consulate General of India [2002] NSWIR Comm 24.

89 Hussein v Libya 2006 AIRC 486; see also Kassis v Republic of Lebanon [2014] FCCA 155.

90 State Immunity Act 1985 (Can) section 5.

91 Butcher v Saint Lucia (1998) 79 ACWS (3d) 815 (Ont CA).

92 Morocco c El-Ansari 2010 QCCA 2256.

93 Roy v South Africa 2013 ONSC 4633.

94 ibid, para 61.

95 In Greco v Holy See [2000] OJ No 5293 (QL) (Ont Sup Ct) a claim for moneys owed under an employment contract was admitted but not one for unfair dismissal.

96 Bentley v Consulate General of Barbados 2010 HRTO 2258 (Ont Human Rights Tribunal).

97 SC Appeal No 99/2012, 10 July 2014, at  <http://www.supremecourt.lk/images/documents/sc_appeal_99_2012.pdf >.

98 Shyam Lal v Union of India [2010] INDLHC 4446 (High Court of Delhi).

99 2006 1 BLR 22; 142 ILR 167.

100 2010 2 BLR 98.

101 Cudak v Lithuania para 72.

102 ibid.

103 [2011] ECHR 1055.

104 ibid, paras 25, 59.

105 ibid, para 61.

106 (App 156/04) 17 July 2012.

107 ibid, paras 62, 71.

108 These decisions have also been supported on the basis that, by favouring the ‘private’ rights of employees over the ‘public’ domain of their employment, the ECtHR has furthered the aims of employment law: see Rodgers, L, ‘Immunity and the Public/Private Boundary in EU Employment Law’ (2015) 6 ELLJ 48Google Scholar.

109 [2015] EWCA Civ 33.

110 [2013] UKEAT 0401_ 12_ 0410.

111 (2003/88/EC).

112 (2000/43/EC).

113 Benkharbouche v Embassy of The Republic of Sudan [2013] UKEAT 0401_ 12_ 0410 para 33.

114 ibid, para 34.

115 [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 16.

116 ibid, para 24.

117 For the reasons mentioned above, however, it is contended that while the reasoning of the ECtHR in Cudak on the formation of customary international law of State immunity is dubious, its conclusion that art 11(2)(a) of the UN Convention represented custom is, with respect, correct.

118 ibid, para 30.

119 ibid, para 46.

120 ibid, para 46; see also para 53.

121 Garnett (n 1) 707.

122 ibid, para 47.

123 ibid, para 56.

124 ibid, para 67.

125 [2004] 2 AC 557.

126 ibid, para 32 (Lord Nicholls), para 63 (Lord Millett), para 121 (Lord Rodger).

127 [2013] UKEAT 0401_ 12_ 0410 para 41.

128 [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 68.

129 ibid, para 72.

130 Labour Court of Brussels 3 May 2012 cited in B Theeuwes, F Dopagne and E Hay, Diplomatic Law in Belgium (Maklu Publishers 2014) 120 para 129.

131 (1992) 94 ILR 264.

132 Defense Contract Management Agency Americas (Canada) v Public Service Alliance of Canada 2013 ONSC 2005.

133 District Court of Portugal 21 September 2005 at www.coe.int/t/dlapil/cahdi/Source/state_immunities/PORTUGAL_Immunities_2013_EN.pdf. For a supportive Italian decision, see Italian Trade Union for Embassy and Consular Staff v United States (1981) 65 ILR 338. See also C-583/10 United States of America v Nolan [2013] 1 CMLR 32 at para 49 where the European Court of Justice suggested (obiter) that State immunity would apply in the context of an application for collective consultation for redundancy by staff at a foreign military base under Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of laws of Member States relating to collective redundancies. The position, however, of State-owned corporations engaged in purely commercial activities may be less clear: State Bank of India v National Labor Relations Board 808 F 2d 526 (7th Cir 1986).

134 C-154/11 19 July 2012; 153 ILR 58.

135 Council Reg No 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters; note that this Regulation has been replaced in respect of proceedings commenced after 10 January 2015 by the Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and Council on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. The analysis in the text, however, is unaffected.

136 See, for the 2012 Regulation, arts 20(2) and 21(1)(a).

137 Mahamdia v Algeria paras 56–57.

138 ibid, para 27.

139 ibid, para 49.

140 Martiny, D, ‘Deutscher Kündigungsschutz für das Personal ausländischer Botschaften?’ [2013] Praxis des Internationalen Privat und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 536Google Scholar; Nino, M, ‘State Immunity from Civil Jurisdiction in Labor Disputes: Evolution in International and National Law and Practice’ [2014] Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 819, 845Google Scholar.

141 [2015] EWCA Civ 33 para 48.

142 [2015] EWCA Civ 33.

143 ibid, para 71.

144 ibid, para 73.

145 ibid, para 85.

146 Emphasis added.

147 See eg R Schutze, European Constitutional Law (CUP 2010) 428–9; S Peers and A Ward (eds), The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights Politics Law and Policy (Hart Publishing 2004) 170 who both acknowledge that the effect of art 52(3) may be to confer a higher level of rights protection under the Charter as compared with the ECHR. See also The UK House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee 43rd Report 2013–14 HC 979, ‘The Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the UK: A State of Confusion’ paras 163–164.

148 Aldona S v Royaume Uni (Supreme Court of Poland 1948) cited in Al-Malki v Reyes [2013] UKEAT 0403_ 12_0410 para 33 (affirmed Reyes v Al-Malki [2015] EWCA Civ 32).

149 Staiano, F, ‘Domestic Workers' Human Rights Versus Diplomatic Immunity: Developments in International and National Jurisprudence’ (2012) 22 Italian Yearbook of International Law 201, 205–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A Kartusch, Domestic Workers in Diplomatic Households (German Institute of Human Rights 2011) 48.

150 73 F 3d 535 (4th Cir 1996).

151 ibid, 537, 538–539.

152 ibid, 538–539.

153 479 F Supp 2d 187 (DDC 2007).

154 665 F Supp 2d 122 (DDC 2009).

155 779 F Supp 2d 60 (DDC 2011).

156 2014 US Dist Lexis 4602 (DNJ).

157 [2015] EWCA Civ 32.

158 ibid, para 14.

159 ibid, para 19.

160 ibid, para 29.

161 See eg Mohamed X v Madame Fettouma Z (CA Montpellier 17 October 2012, 11/01255 Legifrance); MDDA v The Australian Embassy (1988) 19 NYIL 438 n 27.

162 605 F Supp 2d, 122, 129.

163 For a similar approach taken by an English court, see Reyes v Al-Malki [2015] EWCA Civ 32 para 64, although note that human trafficking was found to have occurred in that case. It is also well accepted that a jus cogens norm does not take precedence over the rules of State immunity: see Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy; Greece Intervening) ICJ Rep 2012, 99; Jones v Saudi Arabia [2007] 1 AC 270.

164 313 F 3d 1138 (9th Cir 2002).

165 ibid, 1142 (emphasis in the original).

166 Compare Reyes v Al-Malki [2015] EWCA Civ 32 para 28 where the English Court of Appeal distinguished Park on the ground that it involved consular, not diplomatic, immunity but did not address the above argument.

167 ILDC 1903 (DE 2011) (Higher Regional Court KG).

168 Kartusch's empirical research suggests that this is a common problem in practice; see (n 149) 55.

169 Swarna v Al-Awadi 622 F 3d 123, 134–135 (2nd Cir 2010); Baoanan v Baja 627 F Supp 2d 155 (SDNY 2009).

170 Swarna v Al-Awadi ibid, 135–137.

171 Al-Malki v Reyes [2013] UKEAT 0403_ 12_0410 para 42, affirmed Reyes v Al-Malki [2015] EWCA Civ 32 para 34.

172 Abusabib v Taddese [2012] UKEAT 0424_11_2012 para 35, affirmed [2013] EWCA Civ 1351 para 3.

173 627 F Supp 2d 155.

174 [2012] EWHC 105 (Ch).

175 [2012] UKEAT 0424_11_2012 affirmed [2013] EWCA Civ 1351.

176 ibid, para 31.

177 Ewald v Royal Norwegian Embassy 2012 US Dist Lexis 8949 (D Minn); Jimenez v Delgado 2013 US Dist Lexis 148068 (SD Tex); the same result was reached in Ford v Clement 834 F Supp 72 (SDNY 1993) although the plaintiff employee there was a former vice-consul who may have had a more ‘policy-oriented’ role.

178 An alternative approach would be to amend art 31(1)(c) of the VCDR to render it consistent with art 39(2) of the VCDR and art 43(1) of the VCCR by deleting the ‘professional or commercial activity’ requirement. The task, however, of achieving agreement among over 150 States to amend a widely accepted international instrument would likely be Herculean.

179 A point also suggested by X Yang, State Immunity in International Law (CUP 2012) 192 and Rodgers (n 108) 68, 71.

180 [2015] EWCA Civ 32.

181 ibid.

182 ibid, para 70.