Student Data

 Name: Juan Sebastian Vásquez Parra

 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.