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
- Austria
- Themes
- Type of document
- Jurisprudence
- Permanent link to the contribution
- http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Austria/2001/75
- Useful links
-
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at
- 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 Austria - Jurisprudence of 14/05/2001
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Austria - Jurisprudence of 14/05/2001
K. S. (individual) v. Kingdom of B. (State)
Author(ity)
Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof)
Date of the decision, of the judgment
14/05/2001
Points of law
The Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (Lugano Convention 1988) creates a system of international jurisdiction and does not refer to the immunity of states and diplomatic agents. Claims which arise from iure imperii acts and state liability are excluded from this convention.Article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity does not cover compensation for immaterial damage. The distinction between acts iure imperii and iure gestionis is irrelevant in this context.
Summary of the case
An Austrian citizen filed an action against the Kingdom of B. claiming inter alia compensation of damages which arose from the sanctions imposed by Austria’s 14 European Union (EU) partners claiming that the call to boycott and the decision to impose sanctions on Austria were not iure imperii acts and that the Kingdom of B. was therefore subject to Austrian jurisdiction. The Kingdom of B. claimed immunity.The Supreme Court noted that the question whether and under which conditions legal action can be taken against a foreign State was ruled both by international customary and treaty law. One of such international treaties was the European Convention on State Immunity. Both the Kingdom of B. and Austria are parties to the Convention, but Article 11 of this Convention was not applicable (as claimed by the plaintiff) as it did not cover immaterial damage. Therefore the Kingdom of B. was immune from Austrian jurisdiction according to Article XV of the mentioned Convention. The Court noted further that there was no distinction between acts iure imperii and iure gestionis in this context.
The Supreme Court also stated that the question of immunity had not been ruled specifically EU law. Therefore general international law was applicable and this fact led as well to the immunity of the Kingdom of B. from Austrian jurisdiction.
This legal situation was not changed by the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (Lugano Convention 1988) as this Convention created a system of international jurisdiction and does not refer to the immunity of states and diplomatic agents . Claims which arose from iure imperii acts and state liability were excluded from the mentioned convention.
Finally the Supreme Court stated that the mentioned acts of the Kingdom of B. were with no doubt an activity in the field of foreign policy and therefore acts of ius imperii character.
