CYIL 2014

442 / 532

426
KLARA POLACKOVA VAN DER PLOEG CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
State immunity in contemporary international law from the Polish Embassy Driver
case, only replacing the reference to “individual labor relationships” with a reference
to “individual relationships regulated by Civil Code”, thus expanding the application
of the principle beyond employment matters. Since the lower courts failed to take
this limited conceptualization of State immunity into consideration, the Supreme
Court held their decisions to be incorrect as a matter of law.
2.3 The Popper’s Villa Case
The most recent case was handed down by the Czech Supreme Court in
November 2013 in the case of Lisbeth Popper against the Russian Federation.19 Ms.
Popper seeks in Czech civil courts a determination of the ownership title with respect
to a property currently owned by the Russian Federation and used as the premises for
its diplomatic mission in the Czech Republic (the so-called “Popper’s Villa”).
Ms. Popper is the daughter of Jiří Popper, an inter-war banker and the original
owner of the villa and the adjacent land. In 1939, the property was confiscated by
Nazi authorities on racial grounds and turned into Gestapo headquarters. In 1945,
the then-Czechoslovak president Edvard Beneš donated the property by virtue of
a presidential decree to the Soviet Union for its help in Czechoslovakia’s liberation,
and Popper’s villa has served as the residence of the Russian embassy ever since. After
1989, Ms. Popper sought restitution of the family property ownership under the
restitution laws, which were enacted after the fall of the Czechoslovak communist
regime. However, her restitution request was rejected by the Czech authorities on the
basis that the restitution laws did not extend to the time period in which Popper’s
villa was transferred to the Soviet Union. Ms. Popper therefore sued the Russian
Federation in civil courts directly.
In the course of the proceedings, Ms. Popper requested preliminary measures
prohibiting the Russian Federation from allowing the Czech President, Prime Minister,
other ministers of the Czech Cabinet, and members of the Czech Parliament to enter
the Popper’s Villa premises.20
The Municipal Court in Prague, deciding as the court of first instance, initially
rejected Ms. Popper’s preliminary measures request.21 On appeal, however, the High
Court in Prague held that Czech courts in fact lacked jurisdiction to consider the request
altogether and consequently annulled the Municipal Court’s decision and discontinued
the proceedings on preliminary measures.22 In its ruling, the High Court referred to
19 Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic dated 14 November 2013, case No. 22 Cdo
2537/2012. For ease of reference, the case is referred to in this text as the “Popper’s Villa Case”.
20 According to news reports, Ms. Popper argued that the said politicians’ visit to the embassy amounted
to the Czech Republic’s disdain for its obligations as well as to signs of racism, xenophobia and
antisemitism. See Prague Monitor, ‘Jewish Family Wants Klaus to Be Barred from Russian Embassy’
(14 September 2011)
russian-embassy> accessed 30 June 2014.
21 Ruling of the Municipal Court in Prague dated 26 August 2011, No. 65C 7/2010-217.
22 Ruling of the High Court in Prague dated 27 January 2012, No. 4 Co 1/2011-143. In Czech law, a