Points of law

The Labour Court refers to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Case No. 1999:112 when it makes an assessment of the circumstances in the case before it, and finds that CST is entitled to invoke immunity regarding the employment of GP.

Summary of the case

GP was a former employee of CST who sued the latter for damages on account of having been given notice to quit without grounds of fact. CST claimed state immunity.

Considering the aims and activities of CST, The Stockholm City Court found that CST could enjoy immunity. Furthermore, it found that there was a lot that indicated that the transfer of GP – which GP considered to be a notice to quit – had been carried out by Cyprus in its capacity as a sovereign state. Finally, the Stockholm City Court made an assessment of the circumstances in the case, and concluded that CST enjoyed immunity why the plaintiff's case should be dismissed. GP appealed to the Labour Court.

Initially, the Labour Court established that the investigations of the case revealed that CST was to be considered as the kind of legal entity that may invoke immunity. Thereafter, the Court pointed out that immunity can only be invoked in disputes relating to sovereign acts as such, but not in disputes concerning matters of a commercial or private-law nature. In establishing criteria for such a categorisation of states' acts, the Court referred to the statement of the Supreme Court in case No. 1999:112 that the practical solution was to make an assessment in each particular case of the circumstances that support one position or the other.

In the case before it, the Court commented that as regards employment agreements between entities of immunity and its employees, it has been claimed in the doctrine that immunity should from a general point of view apply according to public international law. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that this was also in line with the ruling of the Labour Court in the case AD 1958 No. 7. The Court thereafter noted that the European Convention on State Immunity, had Sweden been a party to it, would not have constituted an obstacle to CST to claim immunity. In making an assessment of the circumstances, the Court stated that it also paid attention to the position of GP at CST and to other circumstances regarding his employment at CST. The Labour Court's conclusion of the assessment of the circumstances was that CST had the right to invoke immunity.

Sources

Arbetsdomstolens domar 2001, Case AD 2001 Nr. 96

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

Supreme Court decision 30 December 1999 (Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv 1999, Avd I, Case No. 1999:112)