Points of law

The applicants NN, NM, NB and ND instituted before the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade proceedings against the respondent Royal Swedish Embassy for the settlement of the debt owed to them on account of unpaid rents for the villa used for the purposes of the Embassy and for loss of gain as a result of the inability to use the villa in the specified period. At the time when the proceedings were initiated, the applicants had already taken possession of the villa concerned.

The Royal Swedish Embassy in Belgrade invoked its diplomatic immunity. The Second Municipal Court in Belgrade took the decision overruling the objection on account of immunity. However, the decision was reversed by the District Court in Belgrade, in its decision of December 2003. Acting upon the orders of the second instance court, the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade, deciding again upon the appeal of the respondent, asked for the opinion of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed the view that, under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Royal Swedish Embassy cannot appear as a party in litigation.

In the renewed proceedings, the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade once again overruled the objection of immunity raised by the Swedish Embassy and established that the Embassy did not enjoy immunity. The Court explained its decision by the fact that the subject matter of the complaint was not the determination of a real right but compensation for the damage resulting from a contract, as well as that acceptance of the objection of immunity would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the right to a fair trial).

Summary of the case

Sources

Second Municipal Court in Belgrade

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified its position by the fact that the diplomatic agent (the Swedish Ambassador representing the Embassy of Sweden in this particular case) enjoys immunity under the Vienna Convention of 1961 from civil and administrative jurisdiction of courts in cases of occupancy of a property used for the purposes of a mission of the sending State.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed its opinion on the other relevant facts in this matter. As regards the fact that the villa concerned was no longer used for the purposes of the mission or residence of the Head of Mission, the Ministry was of the opinion that this fact was not legally relevant and that it did not affect the right of the Embassy to invoke its immunity, since the receiving State was bound to refrain from exercising sovereign acts of power in relation to the mission of a foreign state. With regard to the merit of the case invoked by the Royal Swedish Embassy in Belgrade when appealing against the decision which rejected the objection of immunity, the Ministry pointed out that this could not be interpreted as a waiver of legal immunity, because such a waiver should be explicitly stated.