International Atomic Energy Agency Representative Immunity Case
| Date | 30 Septiembre 1971 |
| Court | Regional Court (Germany) |
International organization and administration Other international organizations and organs of international administration International Atomic Energy Agency State representative accredited to Agency Extent of entitlement to immunity from jurisdiction of municipal courts Whether immunity limited to acts performed in representative capacity Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Article V(12) The law of the Federal Republic of Germany
Diplomatic and consular intercourse and privileges Right of other persons to privileges and immunities Representatives sent by or accredited to the United Nations or specialized agencies Representative of State accredited to International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna Whether entitled to immunity from jurisdiction of municipal courts in respect of civil litigation concerning custody of child Whether entitled to same degree of immunity as diplomatic representative Whether immunity limited to acts performed in representative capacity Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 1957 Article V (12) The law of the Federal Republic of Germany
Summary: The facts:Mauricio S, a national of El Salvador, applied to the Supreme Provincial Court of Bavaria for the quashing of orders made by lower courts in Munich which related to custody over, and access to, his two year-old child. The orders had been obtained by his wife, Dorothea S, the mother of the child. The spouses were separated and divorce proceedings were pending. The father was, until April 1971, a member of a Special Commission of the Foreign Ministry of El Salvador and since that date had been accredited as deputy to the permanent representative of his country at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. He argued that, by reason of his new appointment, he was no longer subject to German jurisdiction.
Held:The application was rejected.
(1) Whether or not a party to proceedings was subject to the jurisdiction of the court was an independent procedural question which had to be examined by the court of its own motion at every stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. A decision which infringed the extraterritoriality of a party would be null and void.
(2) A State always had jurisdiction within its territory in the absence of a special legal rule to the contrary. Such...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO AN