Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  91 / 350 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 91 / 350 Next Page
Page Background

ADDRESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE IMMUNITY AND

JUS COGENS

Russian Federation does not admit claims even in cases of commercial activities has

been broadly criticized,

57

including recently by the ECtHR in the

Oleynikov

58

case.

A similar absolute attitude has been employed in Chinese jurisprudence, although

the courts of Hong Kong have tended to apply the restrictive approach.

59

The Slovak and Czech practise on foreign State immunities is practically

identical. No jurisprudence related to civil claims against foreign States is available

since the 1963 Law on Private International Law and Procedure follows a “quasi-

absolute” approach to immunity by providing a general rule granting immunity

unless a foreign State or its official “voluntarily submit [itself ] to the jurisdiction”, or

the object of proceedings relates to real estate within the Slovak/Czech territory, to an

inheritance, or to the commercial activities carried by foreign States and their officials

“outside their official duties”.

60

It is the last-mentioned exception, which, together

with a differentiation between acts “within and outside the official duties”, implies

that the traditional absolute approach is now limited to an approach that may be

described as ‘quasi-absolute’.

61

Nevertheless, both Slovakia and the Czech Republic

have signed the UN Jurisdictional Immunities Convention that will, after its entry

into force, enjoy a priority over their respective national legislation.

the competent bodies of the corresponding state, unless otherwise envisaged in the international treaty

of the Russian Federation or in federal law”. Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation No. 138-

FZ of 14 November 2002 (as amended on 6 February 2012).

57

See

e.g.

Michalchuk, D. J., Filling a Legal Vacuum: The Form and Content of Russia’s Future State

Immunity Law Suggestions for Legislative Forum. In: 32

Law and Policy in International Business

(2001), p. 487.

58

Oleynikov v. Russia

, Application No. 36703/04, ECtHR, Judgment of 14 March 2013.

59

See Cheung, E.T.M., Undermining Our Judicial Independence and Autonomy. In 41

Hong Kong

Law Journal

(2011), mentioning (at pp. 412-413) the submission of three letters addressed by Chinese

government to the Hong Kong courts during the litigation affirming that China employs an absolute

approach to foreign State immunity and does not admit any exceptions. Cf. QI, D.: State Immunity,

China and its Shifting Position. In 7

Chinese Journal of International Law

(2008), pp. 307-337,

discussing in detail the relevant Chinese legislation and case-law.

60

Law No. 97/1963 of 4 December 1963 on Private International Law and Rules of Procedure,

Article 47. The Czech Republic amended the provision now containing also an exception in cases

where the implementation of international sanctions, to which the Czech Republic is bound, requires

so. See also the Questionnaire on the topic of Jurisdictional immunities of States and their Property,

submitted by the Government of the Czech Republic on 9 April 1981 to the UN ILC, available in:

Hafner, G. –Kohen, M. G. –Breu, S. (eds.),

State Practice Regarding State Immu

nities. Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers/Council of Europe, 2006, p. 289 ff.

61

The indications whether an absolute or restricted immunity is applied is interesting from the point of

view that in the above mentioned Questionnaire (note 81

supra

) submitted in 1981 the Czechoslovak

government strictly asserted that it took an absolute approach to immunities, not recognizing any

exceptions nor the differentiation between

acta jure imperii

and

acta jure gestionis

. At the same time,

however, Law No. 97/1963 provided an exception to foreign State immunity in the indicated cases,

some of them explicitly attached to the acts of a foreign State or its official “outside of their duties”,

which basically may be interpreted as “

acta jure gestionis

”. This illogical terminological discrepancy

cannot prejudice the fact that the national legislation, as it exists by now, implies a restricted approach,

albeit not restricted to the extent of common law countries.