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

Observer
Belarus
Themes
Type of document
Jurisprudence
Permanent link to the contribution
http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Belarus/2018/525
Translations
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Belarus - Jurisprudence of 25/10/2018

Spetzmashzapchast’ Ltd (plaintiff) vs Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Republic of Belarus (defendant)

Author(ity)

Economic (Commercial) Court of the City of Minsk

Date of the decision, of the judgment

25/10/2018

Points of law

Signature by a duly appointed representative of a State of a contract containing a dispute settlement clause, subjecting the Parties to the jurisdiction of a national court, constitutes a valid waiver of immunity from the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the receiving State. Such waiver does not extend to enforcement jurisdiction. Court correspondence with foreign Embassies must be transmitted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Article 41 (2) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Summary of the case

Under the contract of March 26, 2014 the Embassy procured certain goods for Embassy’s maintenance from Spetzmashzapchast’ Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the Embassy failed to effect payments under the contract in full. Defendant claimed diplomatic immunity defense. Following the request from the Economic (Commercial) Court of the City of Minsk the Ministry of Foreign Affairs opined that the contract was signed by the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Republic of Belarus. The contract contains a clause under which disputes arising out of the contract are to be settled in the Economic (Commercial) Court of the City of Minsk. Therefore, the defendant has waived his immunity from the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Republic of Belarus regarding the case in question. Furthermore, in this case the foreign Government through its diplomatic representation was acting not in its sovereign capacity, but as a participant of civil law transaction based on principles of equality of parties and freedom of contract. The Court proceeded to examine the case on the merits, with defendant submitting his written comments on the claim. Subsequently the Court has ruled in favor of the defendant due to the failure of the claimant to substantiate his claims with appropriate documents. The claim was thus dismissed.

Sources

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)