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
Serbia
Themes
Type of document
Jurisprudence
Permanent link to the contribution
http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Serbia/2006/239
Translations
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Serbia - Jurisprudence of 08/02/2006

АА (an individual) v. Republic of Croatia and the City of Zagreb

Author(ity)

Supreme Court of Serbia in Belgrade

Date of the decision, of the judgment

08/02/2006

Points of law

The Supreme Court rejected the request for review as unfounded. The Court explained in its decision that the norms relating to international jurisdiction of domestic courts were envisaged in the provisions of Article 46 and Articles 50-53 of the Law on the Settlement of Conflicts and that, on the basis of this regulation, the jurisdiction of the domestic court in this particular case was ruled out because it was a case of extra-contractual liability for damages and the respondent is based in the territory of a foreign State.

The Supreme Court held the view that the first-instance Court proved right in ruling that it had no jurisdiction in the case on the grounds that the respondent was an internationally recognized State, and in abrogating the actions taken against the Republic of Croatia and the City of Zagreb by applying the provisions of article 16, paragraph 3, of the Law on Litigation.

Summary of the case

АА lodged a complaint to the First Municipal Court in Belgrade against the Republic of Croatia and the City of Zagreb for material compensation for the damage caused by repeated unlawful and unfounded arrests by the competent Croatian authorities.

The first-instance Court dismissed the complaint against the Republic of Croatia and the City of Zagreb in January 2004.

The Prosecutor appealed against the first-instance decision to the District Court in Belgrade, but the second-instance Court confirmed the adjudication of the first-instance Court. The Prosecutor then filed for review to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Serbia.

Sources

n/a

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

1. Article 16, paragraph 3 of the Law on Litigation specifies that a court, when it finds in the course of a proceeding concerning the settlement of a dispute that no court of the Republic of Serbia has jurisdiction, shall rule ex officio that it has no jurisdiction; that it shall abrogate all actions taken in the case and dismiss the complaint, except in cases where the jurisdiction of the domestic court depends on the consent of the respondent and where the respondent has given his consent.

2. Articles 46 and Articles 50-53 of the Law on the Settlement of Conflict of Laws with the regulations of other countries define the cases where the domestic court has jurisdiction in matters with an international element. Thus, a domestic court has jurisdiction when the respondent has permanent residence or is based in the territory of the Republic of Serbia or when the damage was caused in the territory of the Republic of Serbia.