Benkharbouche v. Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others intervening)

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 575-677

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Embassy employment disputes — Domestic staff — Claims for infringement of employment rights — Whether claims barred by State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”), Section 1 — Exceptions to immunity — Limitations to exceptions — Section 16(1)(a) of SIA — Section 4(2)(b) of SIA — Scope of immunity — Absolute immunity — Restrictive immunity — Whether starting point absolute or restrictive immunity — Distinction between jure gestionis and jure imperii — Customary international law — Whether rule of customary international law justifying Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA — Whether United Kingdom having jurisdiction over respondent States — Whether Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union engagedDiplomatic relations — Immunity from jurisdiction — Embassy employment disputes — Domestic staff employed locally — Whether members of mission — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 1 — Whether Section 16(1)(a) of SIA applicable to claimants — Whether employment of domestic staff of diplomatic mission an act jure gestionis — Whether State entitled to State immunity in proceedings against employer embassiesRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 6 and 14 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47 — Incorporation into English law — Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA — Whether compatible — Whether Article 6 of European Convention engaged by claim to State immunity — Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights — Customary international law — Scope of State immunity — Whether starting point absolute or restrictive immunity — International Law Commission’s Draft Article 11 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 2004, Article 11 — Relevance — Whether Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA having any basis in customary international law — Whether employer States entitled to immunity as regards claimants’ claims — Whether Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA compatible with Article 6 of European Convention and Article 47 of EU CharterHuman rights — Right of access to court — State immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — State Immunity 576Act 1978 — Claimants bringing proceedings against foreign States in relation to employment at embassy — Whether defendant States immune — Whether provisions of SIA barring claimants’ access to court — Whether recognition of immunity involving violation of right of access to courts — Whether infringement of Article 6 of European Convention and Article 47 of EU CharterHuman rights — Prohibition of discrimination — State immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Section 4(2)(b) of State Immunity Act 1978 discriminating on grounds of nationality — Whether infringing Article 14 taken together with Article 6 of European Convention — The law of England

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-228
Author(s):  
Andrew Sanger

AbstractThis article examines the application of the right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in cases involving State immunity. First, it considers the scope of the right of access to a court under the Charter, including its relationship with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the ways in which the Charter is given effect within UK law. Second, the article critically examines the Court of Appeal’s application of both Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter in Benkharbouche v Sudan, a case brought by domestic service staff of foreign embassies based in London against Sudan and Libya respectively. It argues that the Court’s statement that the right of access to a court is not engaged in immunity cases because the court has no jurisdiction to exercise – an analysis which relies on Lord Millett’s reasoning in Holland v Lampen-Wolfe and the dicta of Lords Bingham and Hoffmann in Jones v Saudi Arabia – is erroneousness: the right of access to a court is always engaged in immunity cases because immunity does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction ab initio. The article also argues that contrary to the Court’s reasoning on Article 47 of the EU Charter, the right of access to a court does not need to have horizontal effect in a private between private parties: the right is always enforced against the forum State; it has indirect, not horizontal, effect.


Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa

This chapter examines the development of the general principles by the Court of Justice (CJ) to support the protection of human rights in the European Union (EU) law. It analyses the relationship of the general principles derived from the CJ’s jurisprudence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR). It discusses the possible accession of the EU to the ECHR and the implications of Opinion 2/13. It suggests that although the protection of human rights has been more visible since the Lisbon Treaty and there are now more avenues to such protection, it is debatable whether the scope and level of protection has increased.


Author(s):  
Greer Steven

This chapter examines the origins, historical development, and key characteristics of the various inter-state organizations engaged in human rights activities in Europe. Having briefly described the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, it examines the Council of Europe and the European Union, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.


2021 ◽  
pp. 451-496
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

This chapter investigates each of the European Union’s three bills of rights and the constitutional principles that govern them. It starts with the discovery of an ‘unwritten’ bill of rights in the form of general principles of European law. The chapter then moves to an analysis of the Union’s ‘written’ bill of rights: the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was adopted to codify already existing human rights in the Union legal order. It also considers the formal relationship between the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the chapter explores the relationship between EU fundamental rights and the Member States. Despite being primarily addressed to the Union, EU fundamental rights can, in some situations, also bind the Member States (and even their nationals). National courts may thus sometimes be obliged to review the legality of national law in the light of EU fundamental rights.


Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Anna-Luise Chané ◽  
Manfred Nowak

Over the past decades, the European Union (EU or Union) has undergone a remarkable transformation—from a primarily economic integration project whose founding treaties were completely silent on human rights, to a political union of values that puts human rights front and centre. The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force one decade ago, on 1 December 2009, is widely regarded as the high point of the Union’s journey in that direction. Not only did the Treaty recognise human rights as one of the EU’s founding values, as the guiding principles and objectives of all EU external action, it also gave the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal value as the Treaties and obliged the Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)....


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document