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
- Spain
- Themes
- Type of document
- Jurisprudence
- Permanent link to the contribution
- http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Spain/2001/249
- Attachments
- 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 Spain - Jurisprudence of 17/09/2001
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Spain - Jurisprudence of 17/09/2001
Maite G.Z. (individual) v. Consulado General de Francia (State)
Author(ity)
Constitutional Court
Date of the decision, of the judgment
17/09/2001
Points of law
The Constitutional Court applies its leading case of 1992. It accepts the limited theory of immunity of execution; however, the Court affirms that the property of diplomatic and consular missions is absolutely immune against measures of execution. In any case, for the Court, the determination of the property subject to measures of execution is a question that should be resolved by the ordinary courts, and it is not a constitutional question.Summary of the case
The Constitutional Court declares that the right to a fair hearing includes the right to enforce the judgments of a judicial court. It also says that the Spanish legal system applies a restrictive theory of jurisdictional immunities, and that the measure of execution should take due consideration of the distinction between acts iure imperii and acts iure gestiones –only the latter are subject to measures of constraint. The Court literally says that property of diplomatic and consular missions is absolutely immune against measures of execution, such as embargoes. The appellant asked the Court to revise the determination of the property subject to measures of execution done by the ordinary court, but the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional character of that question. On the contrary, it said that the question of the determination of property as iure gestionis or iure imperii is not a constitutional question and, therefore, must be resolved by ordinary courts.Sources
Aranzadi 2001, no. 176BOE, 19.10.2001, no. 251 (suplemento)