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
Germany
Themes
Type of document
Jurisprudence
Permanent link to the contribution
http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Germany/1963/102
Translations
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Germany - Jurisprudence of 30/04/1963

Anonymous heating installation repair shop v. Iranian Empire

Author(ity)

Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

Date of the decision, of the judgment

30/04/1963

Points of law

The Federal Constitutional Court adopted and explained the theory of relative State immunity. It stated that:

“1. A rule of public international law whereby domestic jurisdiction for actions against a foreign State in relation to its non-sovereign activity is ruled out is not an integral part of Federal law.
2. a) The criterion for distinguishing between sovereign and non-sovereign State activity is the nature of the State’s action.
b) Classification as sovereign or non-sovereign State activity is in principle to be done according to national law.“

Summary of the case

The case arose when the defendant refused to pay plaintiff for repair work done at the Iranian Embassy building in Cologne.

Sources

German original in Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Vol. 16, p. 27 et seq.

English extracts in Decisions of the Bundesverfassungsgericht – Federal Constitutional Court – Federal Republic of Germany, Volume I/1: International Law and Law of the European Communitites 1952-1989 (published by the Members of the Court), 1992, p.150 et seq.

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

This decision of the Federal Constitutional Court is quoted in the Explanatory Report to the European Convention on State Immunity (ETS No.74) as an “important decision“ that “adopted the principle of relative State Immunity“ (§5).