466 / 532
450
KLARA POLACKOVA VAN DER PLOEG
CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
the international law concept. This inexperience has resulted in a deviation from
the international terminology and somewhat confusing treatment of the matter.
Nevertheless, the renewed emphasis on the idea that a foreign State should
enjoy immunity precisely because it carries out certain public functions could
arguably constitute the very contribution of Czech courts to the development of the
contemporary doctrine of State immunity.
As case law on State immunity has to date been relatively infrequent in the Czech
Republic, the current judicial approach to immunities of foreign States remains rather
unrefined. The Czech courts will need to further develop their position in future cases
and more complicated scenarios in order to reach the level of sophistication existing
in other jurisdictions. For example, on its plain reading, it would seem that Czech
courts could be prepared to deny State immunity in employment and tort cases far in
excess of the current international standard. More accurately, however, the decisions
need to be read against the background of the specific facts of each case (an exercise
self-evident in common law jurisdictions, but much less obvious in some civil law
countries), and further elaboration of the currently broadly worded principle is to be
expected. Additionally, it will be interesting to observe how the courts will resolve
any future
in casu
conflict between State immunity and human rights, considering
the specifics of the Czech constitutional order and its built-in normative hierarchy.