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
- Finland
- Themes
- Type of document
- Jurisprudence
- Permanent link to the contribution
- http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Finland/1993/93
- 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 Finland - Jurisprudence of 30/09/1993
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Finland - Jurisprudence of 30/09/1993
Hanna Heusala (individual) v. Republic of Turkey (State)
Author(ity)
Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus)
Date of the decision, of the judgment
30/09/1993
Points of law
The Court established that the Finnish courts were not competent to consider labour disputes involving local employees of foreign missions when duties of the employees were closely related to the exercise of governmental authority.Summary of the case
The case before the Supreme Court of Finland concerned a labour dispute between the Embassy of Turkey and a locally recruited employee, who had worked as a secretary and translator. The Supreme Court held that the European Convention on State Immunity was a valid source when analysing the rules and principles of customary international law.The Supreme Court stated that, pursuant to the Convention, a State cannot claim immunity if the proceedings relate to a contract of employment between the State and an individual, where the work has to be performed on the territory of the forum State. However, the Court referred to Article 32 of the Convention, according to which "nothing in the present Convention shall affect privileges and immunities relating to the exercise of the functions of diplomatic missions and consular posts and of persons connected with them". On the basis of Article 32 and customary international law, the Court found that a foreign mission as an employer could invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of the receiving State when the labour dispute was closely related to the official duties of the mission.
The Court held that the duties of the Plaintiff were meant to serve the official duties of a member of the diplomatic staff of Turkey and was thus closely related to the exercise of governmental authority of Turkey. Therefore, Turkey enjoyed jurisdictional immunity in the case and the Finnish courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction.