Database

The immunities of States and international organisations

This database contains the original national contributions bringing together information on The immunities of States and international organisations

Information on the contribution

Member State
Finland
Themes
Type of document
Jurisprudence
Permanent link to the contribution
http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Finland/1998/100
Translations
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Finland - Jurisprudence of 21/01/1998

Yrityspankki Skop Oy (company) v. Republic of Estonia (State)

Author(ity)

District Court of Helsinki

Date of the decision, of the judgment

21/01/1998

Points of law

The Court found that the case concerned acts of a commercial nature and, therefore, Estonia could not invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, the Court was competent to consider the case.

Summary of the case

The case concerned a guarantee undertaken by the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. Estonia claimed immunity in the case. Furthermore, it stressed that as it had not become a successor to the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic through a State succession, it could not be considered defendant in the case.

The Court emphasized the distinction to be made between acts of government (jure imperii) and acts of a commercial nature (jure gestionis). In addition, it referred to a precedent of the Supreme Court of Finland (KKO 1993:120 - "Hanna Heusala (individual) v. Republic of Turkey (State)). The Court stated that the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic had undertaken a guarantee when the export association of agricultural producers had opened a credit with a private foreign bank. Thus, the matter concerned commercial activities and the status of the guarantor had a private law character.

At the time the guarantee was undertaken, the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was going through a period of economical and political transition. The Court found that, during that period of transition, the nature and the purpose of the State transaction had conclusive significance. It concluded that the activities in question could not be considered to have public law character by virtue of the economical system of the State only, so as to grant immunity to the defendant. Thus, the Court was competent to consider the case.

Sources

Case No. 95/19597

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

The judgement vacated a default judgment entered by the Court on 7 March 1995. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Helsinki.