Id: 0000082740 Activity: Case Brief Professor: Carlos Arévalo Narváez Identification Information Nature of the case Contentious Reference Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening Institution International Court of Justice Date February 3, 2012 Key Words Jurisdictional immunities of the state Facts Germany requested to the Court that Italy has not respected Germany’s immunity from international law by allowing civil claims against it to be brought before it Italian courts by seeking redress for damage caused by violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich during the Second World War. Italy has also violated the immunity of Germany through the adoption of measures coercive measures against Villa Vigoni, owned by the German State Italian territory Italy has also infringed the immunity from jurisdiction of Germany by declaring decisions of civil courts are enforceable in Italy Germany on the basis of acts similar to those giving rise to claims brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities Italian courts. Legal issues The fact that a State has not fully complied with an obligation of reparation allegedly incumbent on him may have an effect, in law, on the existence and scope of immunity jurisdiction of that State before foreign courts? Rule of Law Customary rules of immunity of States from ILC of 1980 Principle stated in Article 13 of the International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Holding and reasoning According to the Court, rules of immunity was relevant because ILC on 1980 concluded that those rules was adopted as a “general rule of customary international law with a solid basis in the usual practice of States. Due to this, States recognize that rules of immunity are applicable for international community and have the obligation to respect it. In Article 13 of the International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts we can see that the compatibility of an act with international law can be determinate only by reference with the applicable law now when the fact was produced. Italian acts didn’t produce until those are subscribed to the Court, the tribunal argued that will apply the law that exist at the moment of those actuations and not which exist in 1943- 1945. Moreover, clarify that right about immunity has a procedure nature, which is different than substantial right that determine the legally or illegally of the conduct. The Court observes that immunity of States for acta jure imperii is applicable even if we are talking about civil judicial acts that have a relationship with actions than produces death, personal injuries or damages to private property committed by the forces or other organs of a State in the course of an armed conflict, even if the relevant acts are carried out in the course of an armed conflict in the territory of the State of the forum. This practice is supported by opinio juris. Consequently, Italian tribunals cannot be justified based on territorial tort principle. For the Court, is clear that acts committed by Germany armed forces and other elements of the Germany Reich constitute a violation of international law, the question is if that acts constitute a circumstance for deprive the right of immunity from Germany. According to the court, customary law doesn’t say that crimes of international law are enough for deprive the right of immunity. According with the possibility of an incompatibility between an Ius cogens norm and the right of immunity, The Court find that the violations that happened on 1043-1945 don’t affect the applicability of Ius Cogens norm. Another aspect is that Italy requested to the Court because it doesn’t have the possibility to obtain compensation for the various groups of victims involved in Italian legal proceedings. The Court cannot find any basis in the practice of the States of the Court. that customary international law is derived that the thesis that international law makes a State's right to immunity dependent on the existence of a State of effective alternative means of redress. Regarding to the measures of constraint taken against property belonging to Germany located on Italian territory, The Court the court made an account of the judicial decision of an Italian court of appeal ordering a charge on the Villa Vigoni, which was property of German state. For the Court, the measure was against immunity of German state because Villa Vigoni has intended to promote cultural exchanges between German and Italian States, moreover, German states didn’t consent the approbation of the measure of constraint taken against Villa Vigoni. In conclusion, The Court said that the measure constitutes a breach of an obligation from Italian state in order to respect German immunity. Germany is aggrieved that its immunity from jurisdiction was breached by the decisions of the Italian courts declaring enforceable in Italy the judgments handed down by the Greek courts against Germany. The analysis made by the Court concluded that Italy didn’t know that was obliged to recognize the immunity applicable to Germany, for that reason breached its obligation to respect Germany’s immunity. Conclusion The Court considers that the action of Italian courts in denying Germany the immunity to which the Court has held it to be entitled under customary international law constitutes a breach of the obligations assumed by the Italian State towards Germany. The Italian Republic has breached its obligation to respect the immunity enjoyed by the Federal Republic of Germany under international law by taking coercive measures against Villa Vigoni. The Italian Republic has breached its obligation to respect the immunity enjoyed by the Federal Republic of Germany under international law by declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts based on violations of international humanitarian law committed in Greece by the German Reich.
Fool for a Client - California Supreme Court - Judge Leondra Kruger, Judge Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Judge Goodwin Liu, Judge Carol Corrigan, Judge Ming Chin, Judge Kathryn Werdegar, Judge Tani Cantil-Sakauye Supreme Court of California - Pro Per Bias-Prejudice
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas