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/2001/97
- 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 11/07/2001
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Finland - Jurisprudence of 11/07/2001
As Veli ja Veljed (company) v. Republic of Estonia (State)
Author(ity)
District Court of Helsinki
Date of the decision, of the judgment
11/07/2001
Points of law
The Court found that it was not competent to consider a case involving private companies of which one was owned by a foreign State.Summary of the case
The case concerned a breach of contract between two Estonian companies. The first party to the contract – the plaintiff in the case – was an Estonian company having a permanent place of business in Finland. The other party was a company (Püssi PPK) owned at the time the contract was concluded (1992) by the State of Estonia and being under the control of the Ministry of Trade and Energy of Estonia. The latter company was later privatized.The Court found that, when privatizing the Püssi PPK, the State of Estonia had not assumed liability for the contract under consideration, and nor was it responsible for the liabilities of the Püssi PPK on other grounds. The Court cited legal literature and stated that the socialistic countries used to consider that immunity was enjoyed not only with respect to state acts, jus imperii, but also with respect to state acts, jus gestionis. The Court established that, due to the immunity of the State of Estonia from jurisdiction, it was not competent to consider the claim and ruled it inadmissible without considering the merits of the case.
