Views
Polish Constitutional Court about to review the constitutionality of the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign State?
Written by Zuzanna Nowicka, lawyer at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and lecturer at Department of Logic and Legal Argumentation at University of Warsaw
In the aftermath of the judgment of the ICJ of 2012 in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) that needs no presentation here (for details see, in particular, the post by Burkhard Hess), by its judgment of 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court recognized the duty of Italy to comply with the ICJ judgment of 2012 but subjected that duty to the “fundamental principle of judicial protection of fundamental rights” under Italian constitutional law (for a more detailed account of those developments see this post on EAPIL by Pietro Franzina and further references detailed there). In a nutshell, according to the Italian Constitutional Court, the fundamental human rights cannot be automatically and unconditionally sacrificed in each and every case in order to uphold the jurisdiction immunity of a foreign State allegedly responsible for serious international crimes.
Since then, the Italian courts have reasserted their jurisdiction in such cases, in some even going so far as to decide on the substance and award compensation from Germany. The saga continues, as Germany took Italy to the ICJ again in 2022 (for the status of the case pending before the ICJ see here). It even seems not to end there as it can be provocatively argued that this saga has its spin-off currently taking place before the Polish courts.
The Greek Supreme Court has decided: Relatives of persons killed in accidents are immediate victims
A groundbreaking judgment was rendered last October by the Greek Supreme Court. Relatives of two Greek crew members killed in Los Llanos Air Base, Spain, initiated proceedings before Athens courts for pain and suffering damages (solatium). Although the action was dismissed by the Athens court of first instance, and the latter decision was confirmed by the Athens court of appeal, the cassation was successful: The Supreme Court held that both the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Lugano Convention are establishing international jurisdiction in the country where the relatives of persons killed are domiciled, because they must be considered as direct victims.
THE FACTS
On 26 January 2015, an F-16D Fighting Falcon jet fighter of the Hellenic Air Force crashed into the flight line at Los Llanos Air Base in Albacete, Spain, killing 11 people: the two crew members and nine on the ground.
The relatives of the Greek crew members filed actions for pain and suffering damages before the Athens court of first instance against a US (manufacturer of the aircraft) and a Swiss (subsidiary of the manufacturer) company. The action was dismissed in 2019 for lack of international jurisdiction. The appeals lodged by the relatives before had the same luck: the Athens court of appeal confirmed in 2020 the first instance ruling. The relatives filed a cassation, which led to the judgment nr. 1658/5.10.2022 of the Supreme Court.
Standard (and burden) of proof for jurisdiction agreements
Courts are often required to determine the existence or validity of jurisdiction agreements. This can raise the question of the applicable standard of proof. In common law jurisdictions, the question is not free from controversy. In particular, Stephen Pitel has argued on this very blog that jurisdiction clauses should be assessed on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to the “good arguable case” standard that is commonly applied (see, in more detail, Stephen Pitel and Jonathan de Vries “The Standard of Proof for Jurisdiction Clauses” (2008) 46 Canadian Business Law Journal 66). That is because the court’s determination on this question will ordinarily be final – it will not be revisited at trial.
News
Announcement – Save the Date: Online Workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property
Chinese Journal of Transnational Law will hold an online workshop on Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property on 28 Feb 2025. All are welcome to attend. A Zoom link will be provided closer to the event.
Tentative Programme
Keynote Speakers
•Prof. Christa Roodt, University of Glasgow
•Prof. Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law
Speakers and Presentations
•Restitution of Cultural Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersection of Public and Private International Law
Andreas Giorgallis (PGR), University of Glasgow
•The Contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the Cross-Border Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Eleni Moustaira, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
•From Freedom to Restitution (With Special Focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone Community)
Miroslaw Michal Sadowski, University of Strathclyde
•Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims
Ruida Chen, China University of Political Science and Law
•Forfeiture and Freezing Orders in Trans-border Cultural Property Litigation
Maggie Fleming Cacot
•Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property and Hurdles in Choice of Law
Yehya Badr, Yamamah University
•The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Türkiye
Ekin Hacibekiroglu, Kadir Has University
•Evolving Models of Restitution
Evelien Campfens, University of Amsterdam
•Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland
Andrzej Jakubowski, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, Polska Akademia Nauk,
We invite those interested in this important discussion to mark their calendars. More information will be provided soon.
Happy New Year from ConflictofLaws.net (now also on Bluesky)!
The editors of ConflictofLaws.net would like to wish you a year filled with happiness, health, and success, academically and otherwise.
2024 has been another great year for the blog, with close to one new post per day (bringing us to more than 5,500 posts in total) and record numbers of readers and subscribers. Our content, just like our readership, reflects the global scope of the blog, with popular posts including Saloni Khanderia & Shubh Jaiswal’s article on the application of the lex fori ‘by default’ in Indian courts, Mayela Celis’ note on Smith & Wesson v Mexico, Orji A Uka & Damilola Alabi’s contribution on service under Nigerian law, Yasmín Aguada & Laura Martina Jeifetz two-part piece on international judicial cooperation and technology in private international law, and Tobias Lutzi’s comment on the CJEU’s decision in Real Madrid.
In addition to our e-mail newsletter (which continues to be surprisingly popular), you can subscribe to our blog on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and – from this year on – Bluesky.
The FAMIMOVE project ends today – A summary of its achievements
Today (31-December 2024), FAMIMOVE 2.0. is coming to an end after having accomplished all of its goals and created a solid network of experts. The project’s full name is Families on the Move: The Coordination between international family law and migration law and is an international project co-funded by the European Commission under the JUST-2022-JCOO program. For more information, click here.
The project aimed to improve the protection of migrant children and families by bringing actual practice more in line with EU goals and values, such as the protection of fundamental rights and best interests of the child. It sought to provide more effectiveness to EU objectives through a better coordination of instruments in overlapping fields, such as Regulations in private international law in family law matters and migration law rules.