Simoncioni v. Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-406
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

With Judgment No. 238/2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter Court) quashed the Italian legislation setting out the obligation to comply with the sections of the 2012 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening) (Jurisdictional Immunities or Germany v. Italy) that uphold the rule of sovereign immunity with respect to compensation claims in Italian courts based on grave breaches of human rights, including—in the first place—the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found the legislation to be incompatible with Articles 2 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, which secure the protection of inviolable human rights and the right of access to justice (operative paras. 1, 2).

ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In its judgment No. 238/2014 the Italian Constitutional Court, whilst appearing to show respect for the ICJ’s 2012 judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, makes notable criticisms of that judgment and insists on its own role in the progressive development of international law in the field of State immunity. In particular, the main legal argument of the Constitutional Court, based on the fundamental and inviolable character of the right of access to justice in constitutional law, can also be used, although modified to some extent, in international law. The Court’s argument can also resolve the possible conflict between the international norm of State immunity, on the one hand, and the international norms on fundamental human rights and access to justice, on the other. The present contribution seeks to demonstrate that: (a) the right of access to justice and the connected right to reparation for violations of fundamental human rights are established by two customary international norms; (b) there is a potential conflict between these norms and the norm of State immunity; (c) this conflict becomes real and concrete when the limits on access to justice and reparation laid down by immunity are unjustified in accordance with the rule of “equivalent protection”; and (d) the solution to that conflict derives from the normative superiority of the customary norms on access to justice and reparation (being peremptory in nature when functionally linked to the violation of fundamental human rights) over the norm of State immunity. The judgment of the Constitutional Court, utilizing legal reasoning that can also translate to the level of international law, demonstrates that osmosis may occur between the arguments used in constitutional and international law, and that today there is growing interaction between the domestic and international legal orders and their common values. The law of human rights, placed at the very center of the Constitutional Court’s judgment, is the field in which this community of values emerges most clearly.

A Moving Target

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Webb
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Moving Target ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
National Practice

The last 50 years have seen significant changes in the law of immunity. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has, over the past 15 years in particular, played an influential role in the law applicable to this ‘moving target’. This chapter examines three approaches of the ECtHR to the identification of general international law: (i) the ECtHR looking to the International Court of Justice; (ii) the ECtHR looking to national practice; and (iii) the ECtHR looking to the work of the International Law Commission and the provisional application of treaties. Although the ECtHR strives to locate itself within general international law, it necessarily approaches the immunities of States, officials, and international organizations through the lens of Article 6 ECHR and whether the immunity in question constitutes a legitimate and proportionate restriction on the right of access to court. This has, at times, taken the Court down a different path to other judicial bodies and we can identify the emergence of a ‘European approach’ to the role of immunity in employment disputes.

scholarly journals The Illusion of Perfect Justice

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-70
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
German Occupation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Right ◽  
Italian Constitution

AbstractThe judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) of 22 October 2014 has set a bad precedent for international law by denying the implementation, within Italy, of the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 3 February 2012. The ICJ found that Italian courts and tribunals had violated German jurisdictional immunity by entertaining suits brought by Italian citizens against Germany on account of damages caused by war crimes committed during World War II by German occupation forces. According to a well-consolidated rule of general international law, no state may be sued before the courts of another state with regard to acts performed in the exercise of its sovereign power. In contravention of Article 94 of the UN Charter, the ItCC deemed it legitimate to discard that ruling because of the particularly grave character of many of the violations in question. It proceeded from the assumption that the right to a remedy established under the Italian Constitution was absolute and must apply even where the financial settlement of the consequences of armed conflict is at issue. However, it has failed to show the existence of any individual reparation claims and has omitted to assess the issue of war reparations owed by Germany in their broader complexity. The judgment of the ItCC might be used in the future as a pretext to ignore decisions of the World Court.

scholarly journals Implementation of Human Rights and the Mandatory Precedents in Foreign Trade, Legal Effectiveness: Mexico Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 153-164
Author(s):  
Laura Hernandez Ramirez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

We make an analysis of the implementation of human rights and the mandatory precedent in matters of Mexican foreign trade, in an administrative and judicial context in the search for legal effectiveness with constitutional control, highlighting the implementation of human rights contained in treaties commercial, such as access to justice and prompt and expeditious; We point out a recent case of human rights and foreign trade, with the implementation in the Mexican legal system, of the Free Trade Agreement Mexico United States Canada, before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, as well as a possible proposal before the provisions of its Article 14.D.5, regarding the right of access to prompt and expeditious justice in investment matters, and avoiding the resolution of controversies before international arbitration panels that have been questioned.

scholarly journals ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL STANCES OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 56-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Vilkova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The article is devoted to the analysis of the stances developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the content, scope, general principles of ensuring the right of access to justice, and permissible limits applied to restrict the right in question. The author has substantiated the conclusion that the European Court of Human Rights associates access to justice with Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Thus, the concept of access to justice includes a number of elements: the right to have recourse to court; the right to have a case heard and resolved in compliance with the requirements of a fair trial; the right to have the judgment enforced; the set of safeguards that allow the person to exercise the rights under consideration effectively. According to the European Court of Human Rights, access to justice should be ensured at all stages including pre-trial (criminal) proceedings and reviewing of court decisions by higher courts. However, the right of access to justice is not absolute. The restrictions imposed must have a legitimate purpose and reasonable proportionality must be obtained between the means used and the goal determined. In view of the requirement mentioned above, the national legislation may provide for the particularities of application of Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings in different types of courts and at different stages, for example, by establishing a certain procedure for the court to grant individuals the right to appeal to a higher court. The author has demonstrated the main directions of applying the legal stances of the European Court of Human Rights regarding access to justice to improve the Russian criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practices, as well as for further scientific research.

scholarly journals O direito de acesso à justiça efetiva e em tempo razoável e o pacto de San José da Costa Rica na proteção do direito à saúde

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-100
Author(s):  
Juliane Caravieri Martins ◽  
◽  
Igor Vinícius de Lima Afonso ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
San Jose ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Right Of Access

This research examines the right of access to justice – fair, effective and timely judicial protection – from the perspective of the American Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San José of Costa Rica, and Brazilian constitutional norms, verifying wether they protected the right to health in order to realize social justice. Furthermore, this study questiones whether this Pact contributed to the protection of the right to health for Brazilians. In other words, this paper investigates if this international treaty contributed to the promotion of the right to health in Brazil by allowing citizens, through the phenomenon of judicialization of public policies, access to fairer and more effective judicial protection.

7 Immunity, 7.1 Manderlier v Organisation des Nations Unies and Etat Belge ( Ministre des Affaires Etrangères ), Tribunal Civil de Bruxelles, 11 May 1966, Journal des Tribunaux, 10 December 1966, No. 4553, 121

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schmitt Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Domestic Law

This 1966 case constitutes one of the first cases in which UN immunity from jurisdiction was challenged. Apart from the question whether the UN had legal personality under domestic law, all other arguments raised by the plaintiff in this case—seeking to restrict UN immunity from jurisdiction—are still debated nowadays before domestic jurisdictions. The Brussels Civil Tribunal notably examined whether the UN’s immunity was conditional upon the latter’s respect of art. VIII, Section 29 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, whether the immunity could be rejected in favour of a human rights argument based on the right of access to justice, and whether it could only be invoked in relation to actions or situations that were necessary for the UN to achieve its goals. Finally, it assessed the existence of a waiver in this particular case.

EFFECTIVE LIMITATIONS AND ILLUSORY RIGHTS: A COMMENT ON THE MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Spiga
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
The Other ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Alternative Means ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The latest attempt by the relatives of the victims of the Srebrenica massacre to hold the UN accountable for the inaction of UNPROFOR while the Bosnian enclave was attacked has once again proven unsuccessful. In a unanimous decision in the Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. the Netherlands case, the European Court of Human Rights declared the application to be ill-founded, finding that the decision of Dutch courts to grant immunity to the UN did not violate the applicants’ right of access to a court. An intrinsic tension between two contemporary trends seems to be embodied in this recent decision. On the one hand the decision follows established and authoritative practice according to which a civil claim cannot override immunity from jurisdiction even though no alternative means of redress is available. On the other hand it conflicts with the growing emphasis placed on the right of access to justice and the right to remedy for victims of gross violations of human rights in the last decade. This note aims to provide a critical review of the decision, focusing on the “alternative means of remedy” test in cases involving the immunity of international organizations. In doing so, the note questions whether such a test must always be a prerequisite for the effective enjoyment of the right of access to a court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document