Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120
June 2009
Grosz v. France (dec.) - 14717/06
Decision 16.6.2009 [Section V]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Grant of immunity of jurisdiction to Germany in proceedings for compensation for forced labour performed during Second World War: inadmissible
During the Second World War the applicant was arrested and deported, with the assistance of the French State, under the Vichy laws enacted between 1940 and 1944. From May 1943 until May 1945 he was forced to work without pay for the German State as part of the forced labour scheme. In 2002 the applicant applied to an employment tribunal for an order requiring the German State to make him an award as payment for the work carried out during his twenty-four months’ forced labour and compensation for the damage he had sustained on account of his working conditions. The employment tribunal decided to refer the case to a special sitting to decide the issue, with a professional judge presiding. The German Government did not attend, invoking State immunity from jurisdiction. The judgment delivered by the special sitting declared the applicant’s action inadmissible on the basis of the principle of immunity from jurisdiction. The court of appeal upheld the judgment and the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law.
Inadmissible: In view of the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001‑XI, Information Note no. 36, and Kalogeropoulou and Others v. Greece and Germany (dec.), no. 59021/00, ECHR 2002‑X, Information Note no. 48), measures taken by a State which reflected the generally recognised rules on State immunity could not be regarded as imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court as embodied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. With regard to compensation of persons subjected to forced labour, while there had been some softening of the concept of State immunity from jurisdiction before the Greek courts (see Kalogeropoulou and Others, cited above), the Court did not hold in that judgment that the State’s immunity from execution contravened the right of access to a court. This was true at least with regard to the current rule of public international law, but did not preclude a development in customary international law or treaty law in the future. Accordingly, the decisions by the domestic courts not to examine the applicant’s compensation claim could not be regarded as unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on his right of access to a court: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy