CYIL 2014

427

STATE IMMUNITY IN JURISPRUDENCE OF CZECH COURTS

the two above-discussed Supreme Court decisions and reasoned that because

“the

real property in question is owned and used for the purposes of the diplomatic mission,

the defendant acts as sovereign public authority in this context, and enjoys functional

immunity.”

Ms. Popper filed an extraordinary appeal against the High Court’s ruling with

the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. She argued (in her most relevant point)

that Czech courts had jurisdiction to consider her preliminary measures request on

the basis that the underlying dispute related to real property located in the territory

of the Czech Republic. The generally recognized exception to the rule of State

immunity should therefore apply.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling of lack of jurisdiction,

albeit on a different and (from the perspective of international law of State immunity)

considerably more apposite basis.

In its decision, the Court departed from three

premises: (i) the general rule of immunity of States in Czech courts; (ii) the exception

from the general rule of immunity with respect to real property located in the territory

of the Czech republic as the forum state; and (iii) the holding of its two earlier cases,

according to which a foreign State is exempted from the jurisdiction of Czech courts

(only) for acts in exercise of a sovereign public authority. Subsequently, with reference

to a domestic scholarly publication on jurisdictional immunities of States,

the

Court stated that it is generally reasonable to allow the exercise of jurisdiction against

foreign States in all proceedings relating to real property, even if used for diplomatic

purposes, so long as this would not violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations (the “Vienna Convention”), in particular the provisions on inviolability of

the premises of the mission and accordance of full facilities for performance of the

functions of the mission.

Applying the identified law to the facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the

preliminary measures as requested by Ms. Popper would directly interfere with the

request on preliminary measures initiates (new) proceedings on the preliminary measures, which,

despite being administered as part of the same case file together with the merits proceeding is

procedurally independent.

Ibid.

This exception was also specifically provided for in the applicable domestic statute § 47 Sec. 3 of Act

No. 97/1963 Coll., on International Private and Procedural Law:

“However, Czech courts shall have

jurisdiction, if: (a) the object of the proceedings is real property of the States …, which is located in the Czech

Republic, or their rights relating to such real property belonging to other persons, as well as rights arising from

the lease of such real property, unless the object of the proceedings is the payment of rent.”

Ms. Popper attempted to lodge a complaint against the Supreme Court’s ruling (and the rulings of

the lower courts) with the Constitutional Court. However, due to the missed statutory time limit for

submission, the Constitutional Court rejected her petition in ruling No. I. ÚS 914/14 and did not

consider its merits. The merits of the case are currently still pending at the first instance court, the

Municipal Court in Prague. Confirmed as of 12 May 2014.

Caban P.,

Jurisdikční imunity států [Jurisdictional Immunities of States]

(Právnická fakulta, Univerzita

Karlova v Praze 2007).

Articles 22 and 25 of the Vienna Convention respectively.