Scribd
Upload
226 views3 pages

Germany's Jurisdictional Immunity Case

Germany brought a case against Italy to the International Court of Justice regarding civil claims filed in Italian courts against Germany for violations committed by Germany during World War II. Germany argued that as a sovereign state it had jurisdictional immunity. The ICJ ruled that Italy violated Germany's immunity by allowing the civil suits and enforcing Greek court decisions against Germany. As a sovereign state, Germany maintained immunity even for very serious international law violations during wartime. The ICJ also found Italy violated international law by placing measures of constraint on a German property in Italy used for governmental purposes without Germany's consent.

Uploaded by

Precious Ivy Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
226 views3 pages

Germany's Jurisdictional Immunity Case

Germany brought a case against Italy to the International Court of Justice regarding civil claims filed in Italian courts against Germany for violations committed by Germany during World War II. Germany argued that as a sovereign state it had jurisdictional immunity. The ICJ ruled that Italy violated Germany's immunity by allowing the civil suits and enforcing Greek court decisions against Germany. As a sovereign state, Germany maintained immunity even for very serious international law violations during wartime. The ICJ also found Italy violated international law by placing measures of constraint on a German property in Italy used for governmental purposes without Germany's consent.

Uploaded by

Precious Ivy Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE STATE

Germany v. Italy

FACTS:
Before Italian courts, several civil claims were filed against Germany. The
complainants in these suits claim that the Third Reich violated humanitarian laws
in World War II. The violations were categorized into three: large-scale killing in
Occupied Territories; forcing civilians into labor camps; and denying Italian
soldiers the status of Prisoner-Of-War and all rights that come with it.
The courts of Italy found Germany to be liable. Similar suits were brought before
Greek courts, and Germany was also found liable. The Italian courts declared both
judgments enforceable.
On another note, Italy has done measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni, a
property of Germany.
Thus, Germany sought the help of the International Court of Justice to declare that:
 Italy violated Germany’s immunity when the civil suits were allowed to
proceed in Italian courts and when measures of constraint were taken against
Villa Vigoni
 Italy breached Germany’s jurisdictional immunity when Italian courts
declared the Greek decisions enforceable.

Germany argues that there is no limit to a State’s immunity regarding acts of juri
imperii. The acts complained of by the Italian claimants were committed by the
Reich’s soldiers.
On the other hand, Italy puts forth two arguments: First, State immunity does not
apply to torts or delicts that result in death, personal injury, or damage to property
—if the doer of the injury was present in the forum State at that time. Second, the
wrongful acts are very serious violations of rules of international law, take the
nature of jus cogens, and no other redress is available.
ISSUE:
Whether the decisions of the Italian and Greek courts can be enforced against
Germany

RULING:
No.
1. As to the torts claim
The ILC opined that States do not lose immunity over “situations involving armed
conflicts.”
The ICJ also looked at State practice through the judgments of States’ national
courts. These national courts have constantly ruled that immunity for juri imperii
extend to civil suits regarding death, personal injury, or damage to property, that
were committed by the armed forces and State organs in times of armed conflict.
There is also no jurisprudence that contracts this position.
Thus, the judgment of the Italian and Greek courts cannot be enforced against
Germany.

2. As to the nature of the acts (“very serious violation”)

Under customary international law, a State does not lose immunity just because it
is accused of serious violations of international human rights law or the
international law of armed conflict.
Jus cogens and State immunity are not in conflict; they address different things.
State immunity is about whether one State court may exercise jurisdiction over
another State. Even if the violation is of jus cogens, a State’s immunity is not
affected.

State immunity is not based on the availability of remedies. There is no practice in


international law or even judgments from national courts that supports this
argument.

X-----------X
EXTRA NOTES:
1. Germany brought the complaint before the ICJ in accordance with Article 1
of the European Convention. It provides that contracting parties (the
countries) will take their disputes before the ICJ if the issue is the
reparations for breach of an international obligation.

2. As to Villa Vigoni (the German property put under constraint by Italy), there
are requisites before a State property can be put under constraint:
 The property is not used for the government’s non-commercial
activities
 The owner State expressly consents to property being put under a
measure constraint
 The owner State allocated the property to settle a judicial claim
In this case, Villa Vigoni is Germany’s Cultural Center, thus is used for a
governmental activity. Germany did not consent to the constraint and the Villa was
not earmarked to settle judicial claims.

You might also like