Points of law

The Plenary of the Supreme Court held that the requirement for prior consent of the Minister of Justice (as provided in article 923 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is not contrary to article 6 par. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and article 2 par. 3 as well as 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Summary of the case

The Plenary of the Supreme Court held that the prior consent of the Minister of Justice (article 923 of the Code of Civil Procedure), which is necessary to initiate enforcement proceedings against a foreign State, is not contrary to article 6 par. 1 of the ECHR and articles 2 par. 3 as well as 14 of the ICCPR. It consequently decided that the right to effective remedies in case of enforcement proceedings may, under certain conditions, be subject to restrictions. Such restrictions should be provided for by law and should not violate the substance of the protected right or be disproportionate to the aim pursued and the means employed.

The Supreme Court held that the refusal of the Minister of Justice to consent to enforcement proceedings against a foreign State is not contrary to the aforementioned rules of the ECHR and the ICCPR if such enforcement proceedings are directed against the property of a foreign State serving “jure imperii” purposes or if these proceedings may endanger the international relations of the country with foreign States.

Sources

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)