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/1997/107
- Translations
-
- No translations
- Add a translation
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Germany - Jurisprudence of 10/06/1997
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Germany - Jurisprudence of 10/06/1997
Constitutional complaint of a former ambassador
Author(ity)
Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)
Date of the decision, of the judgment
10/06/1997
Points of law
The complaint was rejected because the complainant’s diplomatic immunity recognized by the German Democratic Republic did not bind the Federal Republic of Germany. In this context the Federal Constitutional Court referred to distinctions between State immunity and diplomatic immunity which are summarized hereinafter.The immunity of State officials, in particular members of the government, derives directly from State immunity. It must be distinguished from diplomatic immunity. State immunity and diplomatic immunity represent two distinct concepts of international law following their own rules so that one can draw no conclusions from the limits of one of the concepts as to the existence of similar limits of the other concept. Therefore exceptions to the concept of State immunity permitting the prosecution of State officials for international crimes etc. cannot be transferred to the concept of diplomatic immunity. This is so because of the personal element involved in diplomatic immunity which protects not only the sending State but also the diplomat personally. Even if a State does not enjoy immunity for non-sovereign acts, this does not mean that a diplomat involved in such acts is subject to the jurisdiction of the receiving State.
The distinction between acta iure imperii and acta iure gestionis which characterizes the concept of State immunity is unknown to the law of diplomatic relations. Diplomatic immunity for official acts thus is not a mere reflection of the immunity of the sending State but has its independent basis in the special status of the diplomat. His presence and his competence to act for the sending State in the territory of the receiving State is based on the consent of the latter in the form of the "agrément" while the extension of State immunity to State officials is based on nothing but the internal appointment processes of the State concerned (p.85 et seq.)
