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
- Portugal
- Themes
- Type of document
- Jurisprudence
- Permanent link to the contribution
- http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Portugal/2005/227
- Attachments
- Useful links
-
http://www.dgsi.pt
- Translations
-
- No translations
- Add a translation
Judgment - Portuguese.pdf
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Portugal - Jurisprudence of 22/06/2005
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Portugal - Jurisprudence of 22/06/2005
Austria (State) v. individual
Author(ity)
District Court (Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa) - Appeal
Date of the decision, of the judgment
22/06/2005
Points of law
Foreign States enjoy immunity for acts iure imperii but not for acts iure gestionis, that is to say when it acts in the same way as a private person in a legal relation governed by private law, as commercial activities or labor issuesSummary of the case
Following the layoff of a locally contracted staff member of the Austrian Embassy in Lisbon, the Court considered that the foreign State (represented by the Embassy) did not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction. The Court noted that contemporary doctrine and case law favor a restrictive approach to immunity from jurisdiction; however, the Court recognized that there are divergent interpretations of the restrictive theory of State immunities and acknowledged national courts’ difficulties in distinguishing acts of ius imperii from acts of ius gestioni.The Court referred to previous case law - Supreme Court Decision of 13.11.2002 - which was already mentioned in Portugal’s previous national report on State Immunities, submitted in November 2005; in that particular case, since the party (individual) performed administrative tasks under the supervision the Embassy’s Commercial Counselor, the Court ruled that the State acted as a private person in a legal relation governed by private law.
