Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Public International Law Meets EU Private International Law: An Insight on the ECJ Case-Law Dealing with Immunity Vis-À-Vis the Application of the Brussels Regime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law

Abstract

EU private law and public international law intersection remains a gray-zone. The potential risk of conflict between EU jurisdiction vis-à-vis immunities seems to be a challenge for EU national courts when determining its international competence. This article examines the interplay between EU civil jurisdiction and immunity claims, in the light of two recent judgments of the European Court of Justice dealing with the articulation of the Brussels Regime and the customary rule on immunity. The analysis revisits the debate on the right to access courts as a potential limitation to uphold immunity. Further, it poses the question of whether the ECJ as the judicial actor of the EU can actively contribute to the development of international law in the wider world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECJ judgment of 7 May 2020, LG v Rina, C-641/18, EU:C:2020:349.

  2. 2.

    ECJ judgment of 3 September 2020, Supreme Site Services GmbH and Others v Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, C-186/19, EU:C:2020:638.

  3. 3.

    The Brussels Regime are rules regulating jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial matters. For the purposes of this article, it refers to the Brussels Convention of 1968 and its successors: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 and Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012.

  4. 4.

    See Klabbers (2015)

  5. 5.

    See for example: Ziegler (2015), p. 45, Klabbers (2015), p. 59.

  6. 6.

    See Wessel (2019)

  7. 7.

    ECJ Judgment of 5 February 1963, Van Gend & Loos, 26/62, EU:C:1963:1 “the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights[…]”.

  8. 8.

    Moreno-Lax and Gragl (2016), p. 3.

  9. 9.

    EU Primary legislation refers to the European Union (EU) treaties: Treaty of the European Union (TEU), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE), protocols, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). EU secondary law are acts enacted by the EU institutions: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions.

  10. 10.

    In Rina Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and in Supreme Site Services its predecessor: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast).

  11. 11.

    Klabbers (2015) p. 4, Lenaerts et al. (2021) p. 52.

  12. 12.

    Wessel (2019), p. 73, Lenaerts (2019), p. 1.

  13. 13.

    See Lenaerts (2019), p. 1.

  14. 14.

    See ECJ Judgment of 31 March 1971, Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, European Agreement on Road Transport, Case 22–70, EU:C:1971:32.

  15. 15.

    Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Rome, 25 March 1957.

  16. 16.

    De Witte (2011)

  17. 17.

    Klabbers (2015), p. 1.

  18. 18.

    Pescatore (2006), p. 163.

  19. 19.

    See Van Gend & Loos supra note 8; ECJ judgment of 13 November 1964, Commission vs Luxembourg and Belgium, joined cases 90/63 and 91/63, EU:C:1964:80; ECJ Judgment of 30 of April 1974, Haegeman, C-181/73, EU:C:1974:41.

  20. 20.

    Note supra 18, p. 164.

  21. 21.

    Da Silva Passos (2019) p. 295, Ziegler (2015), p. 45.

  22. 22.

    Article 216.2 codifies the ECJ ruling in the Haegeman case.

  23. 23.

    In Van Gend & Loos, Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium, and Costa v Enel (ECJ judgment 15 July 1964, Costa v E.N.E.L., EU:C:1964:66) the Court laid down the foundations of the EU constitutional framework based on EU Legal Order autonomy.

  24. 24.

    Klabbers (2011), p.114.

  25. 25.

    Lenaerts (2019), p. 5, Lenaerts et al. (2021) p. 57.

  26. 26.

    See AG M. Poiares Maduro comments regarding the relationship between PIL and EU law in its Opinion of 23 January 2008 on Kadi I C-415/05, EU:C:2008:30, points 21–24, and Lenaerts (2019) p. 10.

  27. 27.

    Lenaerts et al. (2021) p. 87.

  28. 28.

    Rosas (2013), p. 159.

  29. 29.

    The Court of Justice of the EU comprises two different courts, the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice, informally known as the ECJ.

  30. 30.

    Kadi I: ECJ judgement of 3 September 2008, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, case C-415/05 P (Joined Cases C-402/05 P, C-415/05 P), EU:C:2008:461; Kadi II: ECJ Judgment of 18 July 2013 European Commission and Others v Yassin Abdullah Kadi, joined Cases C‑584/10 P,C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P, EU:C:2013:518.

  31. 31.

    ECJ judgment of 13 January 2015, Vereniging Milieudefensie,C-401/12 P, EU:C:2015:4.

  32. 32.

    ECJ judgment of 10 December 2015, Council v Front Polisario, Case C-104/16, EU:C:2016:973.

  33. 33.

    ECJ Judgment 24 November 1992, Poulsen and Diva, C-286/90, EU:C:1992:453.

  34. 34.

    ECJ Judgment of 16 June 1998, Racke GmbH&Co, C-162/96, EU:C:1998:293.

  35. 35.

    Ibid, para 46.

  36. 36.

    Judgment of 21 December 2011, Air Transport Association of America, C-366/10, EU:C:2011:864.

  37. 37.

    Those acts being EU secondary legislation. See Haegeman case supra note 20.

  38. 38.

    ECJ judgment of 26 April 1972, Interfood GmbH, C-92/71, EU:C:1972:30;ECJ judgment 11 April 2013, HK Danemark, Joined cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, EU:C:2013:222.

  39. 39.

    See Kadi cases: C-402/05 P and C-415/05 Kadi I, C-584/10 P, C-593/10 and C-595/10 P Kadi II.

  40. 40.

    ECJ Opinion of 18 December 2014, O 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, EU:C:2014:2454.

  41. 41.

    ECJ Judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea, C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

  42. 42.

    For Kadi I see Tomuschat (2009), Tomuschat (2016) p. 616 “One may unhesitatingly speak of an arrogant judgment, which establishes the European Union as an entity outside any universal regime of law, in any event regarding international human rights”, for Opinion 2/13 see Eeckhout (2015).

  43. 43.

    ECJ Opinion of AG Legrande of 12 June 1956, Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique, C-8/55, EU:C:1956:6EU:C:1956:6.

  44. 44.

    Lenaerts et al. (2021) p. 60.

  45. 45.

    Malenovský (2013), p. 58.

  46. 46.

    Under the preliminary ruling procedure set in Art. 267 TFEU, a Court or Tribunal of a Member State can submit a preliminary question to the ECJ to interpret and decide on the validity of EU Law.

  47. 47.

    See supra note 1 & 2.

  48. 48.

    Ibid, Rina.

  49. 49.

    See supra note 34 Paulsen Diva; supra note 35 Racke.

  50. 50.

    Sinking report: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Egyptian ferry sinks in Red Sea.

  51. 51.

    Directive 2009/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations.

  52. 52.

    The Italian Court referred to the ICJ judgment on jurisdictional immunities that will be discussed later, ICJ judgment on Jurisdictional immunities of the State, Germany v Italy: Greece intervening, 3 February 2012.

  53. 53.

    “The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced”.

  54. 54.

    ECJ judgment 17 February 2017, Lechouritou v Germany, C-292/05 EU:C:2006:700; ECJ judgment, 19 July 2012, Mahamdia, C-154/11, EU:C:2012:491.

  55. 55.

    Par in parem non habet imperium, an equal cannot have jurisdiction over an equal. Unless the Sovereign State consents to it.

  56. 56.

    See Article 6 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, G.A. Res. 59/38, U.N. Doc. A/RES/59/38, (Dec. 16, 2004).

  57. 57.

    ECJ Opinion of AG Ruiz- Jarabo, 8 November 2006, Lechouritou v Germany, C-292/05, EU:C:2006:700.

  58. 58.

    Supreme para. 64 and ICJ judgment supra note 51, para. 56.

  59. 59.

    Supreme para. 74.

  60. 60.

    Rina para 28; Supreme para 48 and 74.

  61. 61.

    Rogerson (2016), Art 1, Note IV.

  62. 62.

    Rina para. 33; Supreme para. 56.

  63. 63.

    See para. 55 in Supreme and case-law noted therein.

  64. 64.

    Rina para. 35; Supreme para 55.

  65. 65.

    Rina para. 41; Supreme para. 66.

  66. 66.

    Rina para. 58; Supreme para. 62.

  67. 67.

    See Rina para. 58.

  68. 68.

    Peters (2014) p. 1.

  69. 69.

    Whytock (2014) p. 2077.

  70. 70.

    See supra note 52.

  71. 71.

    Supra note 52, para 93.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Ibid. para 101.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    See Jervis (2019)

  76. 76.

    See note supra 54, para. 106.

  77. 77.

    Ibid. para. 104.

  78. 78.

    Italian Constitutional Court, judgment 238/2014 of 22 October 2014, IT:COST:2014:238. For a commentary on the constitutional arguments, see De Sena P (2017) pp. 64–71.

  79. 79.

    Ibid. Italian Constitutional Court judgment, para 5.1 in fine.

  80. 80.

    In connection with the right to a judge envisaged in Art. 24 of the Italian Constitution.

  81. 81.

    Ibid. supra note 80 at para 2.2 and see Pavoni (2015), p. 403.

  82. 82.

    The right to effective remedy and to a fair trial is enshrined in Article 47 CFR, which is the equivalent to Article 6(1) ECHR.

  83. 83.

    As mentioned earlier, the action brought by the claimants sought the compensation for damages against a ship certification company for the alleged responsibility in the sinking of a vessel.

  84. 84.

    It should be noted that EU secondary law does not take precedence over international law.

  85. 85.

    Ibid supra note 52 para 93.

  86. 86.

    ECtHR judgment, Golder v the United Kingdom, app no. 4451/70, 21 February 1975, CE:ECHR:1975:0221JUD000445170.

  87. 87.

    See notably, ECtHR judgment, Al-Adsani v the United Kingdom, app no.35763/97, 21 November 2001. CE:ECHR:2001:1121JUD003576397.

  88. 88.

    Ibid, para 56.

  89. 89.

    ECtHR judgment, Cudak v Lithuania, app no. 15869/02, 20 March 2010, CE:ECHR:2010:0323JUD001586902, para 74.

  90. 90.

    See supra note 87, para 54.

  91. 91.

    ECtHR judgment, Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom, applications nos. 34356/06 and 40,528/06, 14 January 2014, CE: ECHR:2014:0114JUD003435606, para. 186.

  92. 92.

    ECtHR judgment Jones and Others, para. 195.

  93. 93.

    ECJ judgment, Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v The Netherlands, application no. 65542/12, 11 June 2013, CE:ECHR:2013:0611DEC006554212, para 164.

  94. 94.

    ECtHR judgment, Waite and Kennedy v Germany, App No 26083/94, 18 February 1999, CE:ECHR:1999:0218JUD002608394.

  95. 95.

    Ibid, para. 68.

  96. 96.

    England and Wales Court of appeal judgment, 5 February 2015, Benkharbouche and Janah v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan and Libya (2015) EWCA Civ. 33.

  97. 97.

    See Ziegler (2017)

  98. 98.

    Ibid at p. 146.

  99. 99.

    See supra note 96 para. 53.

  100. 100.

    See supra note 96 paras 13–14, particularly the case on Holland v. Lampen-Woolfe.

  101. 101.

    This resonates with AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer reasoning on the Lechouritou case see supra note 54 and with the position of the ICJ in jurisdictional immunities.

  102. 102.

    Italian Supreme Court, Judgment 28,180/2020 of 10 December 2020, case Abdel Naby Hussein Mabrouk.

  103. 103.

    Ibid, para. XII.

  104. 104.

    Ibid. para. XI in fine.

  105. 105.

    Judgement of the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, 10 December 2019, SHAPE and JFCB v Supreme Site Services, NL:RBLIM:2017:1002 (Check link).

  106. 106.

    Ibid. para. 683. The Dutch Court found the Release of Funds Working Group which was agreed by the parties to settle any possible contractual differences, a reasonable dispute settlement mechanism. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction.

  107. 107.

    Garnett (2018) p. 15.

  108. 108.

    Ibid. p. 14.

  109. 109.

    Article 19(1) TEU.

  110. 110.

    In this respect, see Malenoswký (2013) p. 58. He notes that in the process of domesticating international law, each State can shape international law to adapt it to its legal tradition and values arguing that the EU does the same.

  111. 111.

    Odermatt (2016) and Odermatt (2019)

  112. 112.

    Odermatt (2016) p. 67.

  113. 113.

    See supra note 32.

  114. 114.

    ECJ judgment of 27 February 2018, Western Sahara Campaign UK, C-266/16, EU:C:2018:118.

  115. 115.

    See Kassoti (2019) and Cannizzaro (2018)

  116. 116.

    International Law Commission (ILC), Draft conclusions on identification of customary international law, with commentaries (2018); for further comment Daugirdas (2020), p. 204.

  117. 117.

    Ibid. Conclusion 13.

  118. 118.

    Ibid. Conclusion 13, Commentary (3).

  119. 119.

    Odermatt (2017) pp. 21–22.

References

  • Cannizzaro E (2018) In defence of front polisario: the ECJ as a global jus cogens maker. Common Mark Rev 55:569–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Daurgidas K (2020) Eur J Int Law 31(1):201–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa012

  • De Witte B (2011) The European Union as an international legal experiment. In: De Búrca G, Weiler JHH (eds) The worlds of European constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva Passos R (2019) The interface between EU and International Law: Contemporary reflections. In: Govaere I, Garben S (eds) The interaction between public international law and EU law: the role played by the court of justice, 1st edn. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, pp 295–305

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sena P (2017) The judgment of the Italian constitutional court on state immunity in cases of serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law: a tentative analysis under international law. In: International law and the protection of humanity. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff., pp 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004269

  • Eeckhout P (2015) Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and judicial dialogue: autonomy or autarky? Fordham Int Law J 38.4:955–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett R (2018) Foreign State immunity: a private international law analysis. A Orakhelashvili. Edward Elgar Publishing, Research handbook on jurisdiction and immunities in international law, pp 297–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis C (2019) Jurisdictional immunities revisited: an analysis of the procedure substance distinction in international law. Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chz009

  • Kassoti E (2019) The Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit debate revisited: The CJEU’s approach to international law in the interpretation of economic agreements covering occupied territories. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Law School, Edinburgh Centre for International and Global Law Working Paper Series

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2015) Straddling the fence: the EU and international law. In: Chalmers D, Arnull A (eds) The oxford handbook of European union law, edit. Oxford University Press, pp 52–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2011), Völkerrechtsfreundlich? international law and the union legal order. In: Koutrakos P (ed) European foreign policy: legal and political perspectives, 1st edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 95–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2011) The validity of EU norms conflicting with international obligations. In: Cannizzaro E, Palchetti P, Wessel RA (eds) Studies in EU external relations: international law as law of the European Union, pp 111–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2012) An introduction to International Institutional law (2nd edn.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2019) The autonomy of Euopean Union Law. Aisdue Koen Lenaerts—The autonomy of European Union Law—Aisdue

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2015) Les fondaments constitutionnels de l’union européene dans leur rapport avec le droit international. In: la Cour de Justice de L’Union européennes sous la présidence de Vassilios Skouris (2003–2015), pp 367–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K, Gutiérrez-Fons JA, Adam S (2021) Exploring the autonomy of the european union legal order. Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht Und Völkerrecht 81:47–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Malenovský J (2013) La contribution ambivalente de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne à la saga centenaire de la domestication du droit international public. In: Kronenberger V, D’Alessio MT, Placco V (eds) De Rome à Lisbonne: les juridictions de l’Union à la croisée des chemins, Mélanges en l’honneur de Paolo Mengozzi. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 25–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Lax V, Gragl P (2016) Introduction: beyond monism, dualism, pluralism: the quest for a (Fully-Fledged) theoretical framework: co-implication, embeddedness, and interdependency between public international law and EU law. Yearb Eur Law 35(1):455–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Odermatt J (2016) The contribution of the court of justice of the european union to the development of international law. In: Paper presented at the annual conference of the european society of international law, pp 1–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Odermatt J (2017) The development of customary international law by international organizations. Int Comp Law Q 66(2):491–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Odermatt J (2019) The International court of justice and the court of justice of the European union: between fragmentation and universality of international law. In: Skordas A (ed) Research handbook on the international court of justice. Edward Elgar, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavoni R (2015) Simoncioni v. Germany. Am J Int Law 109(2):400–406. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.2.0400

  • Pescatore P (2006) L'ordre Juridique Des Communautés Européennes : étude Des Sources Du Droit Communautaire, Réimpr (edn). Bruxelles, Bruylant

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2014) Immune against constitutionalisation? In: Immunities in the age of global constitutionalism. Brill Nijhoff., Leiden, The Netherlands, pp 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004251632_002

  • Rosas A (2013) International responsibility of the EU and the European court of justice. In Evans M, Koutrakos P (eds) The international responsibility of the european union: European and international perspectives, pp 139–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson P (2016) In Magnus and Makowski. Verlag Otto Schmidt, Brussels I Bis Regulation

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M (2013) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979815

  • Tomuschat C (2009) The Kadi case: what relationship is there between the universal legal order under the auspices of the united nations and the EU legal order? Yearb Eur Law 28(1):654–663. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/28.1.654

  • Tomuschat C (2016) The micro level: insights from specific policy areas: the relationship between EU law and international law in the field of human rights. Yearb Eur Law 35(1):604–620. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew023

  • Wessel R (2019) Studying international and European law: confronting perspectives and combining interests. In: Govaere I, Garben S (eds) The interaction between public international law and EU law, 1st edn. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, pp 73–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Whytock A (2014) Foreign state immunity and the right to court access. Boston Univ Law Rev 93(6):2034–2092

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler K (2016) The relationship between EU law and international law. In Patterson D, Södersten A (eds) A companion to European union law and international law, pp 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119037712.ch4

  • Ziegler K (2017) Immunity versus human rights: the right to a remedy after benkharbouche. Hum Rights Law Rev 17:127–151

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Digital Legal Department, Amazon Europe Core, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    María Barral Martínez

Authors
  1. María Barral Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia

    Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit

  2. Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Dharmita Prasad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Barral Martínez, M. (2022). When Public International Law Meets EU Private International Law: An Insight on the ECJ Case-Law Dealing with Immunity Vis-À-Vis the Application of the Brussels Regime. In: Sooksripaisarnkit, P., Prasad, D. (eds) Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8479-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8480-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation