Lopez Cifuentes v. Spain (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121

July 2009

Lopez Cifuentes v. Spain (dec.) - 18754/06

Decision 7.7.2009 [Section III]

Article 35

Article 35-3

Ratione personae

Application directed against State by virtue of fact that the international organisation concerned had its seat there: inadmissible

The applicant was an employee of the International Olive Council (“the IOC”), an international intergovernmental organisation based in Spain. The Executive Director of the IOC brought disciplinary proceedings against him and he was suspended. He was informed of the disciplinary charges and of the investigator’s recommendation that he be dismissed without notice. The applicant appealed to the Joint Committee of the IOC, which found that the disciplinary procedure had been properly followed, but suggested that the case be examined by the competent judicial authorities. Having heard the applicant, the Executive Director of the IOC adopted a decision stating that gross negligence had been established and that the applicant was to be dismissed without notice, with immediate effect. That decision was nevertheless open to appeal before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (“ATILO”). The applicant applied to the Court, considering that as Spain had ratified a “host country” agreement with the IOC, it could be held responsible for violations of the Convention resulting from that organisation’s acts in so far as Spain could not allow the IOC to exercise its judicial powers over its territory and its inhabitants in breach of the guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. He then challenged the decision before the ATILO, which found his application ill-founded and rejected it.

Inadmissible: The alleged violations of the Convention had originated in an act of the IOC, namely, the disciplinary procedure that had led to the applicant’ dismissal. The application was unusual in that it had been lodged against the respondent State in its capacity as host country of the international organisation’s permanent headquarters. Spain had granted the IOC immunity from criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction. That, however, did not justify the application of principles different from those established in the Boivin and Connolly cases, which concerned the individual and collective liability of the Contracting States under the Convention as a result of them being members of a particular international organisation. The findings were transposable to a State Party to the Convention which had agreed to the presence of an international organisation on its soil. It was in keeping with international law for States to confer immunities and privileges on international bodies on their territory. The applicant’s complaints essentially concerned the disciplinary proceedings against him in the IOC. He had challenged the disciplinary penalty through the internal system set in place by the organisation. The impugned decisions had been taken by an international organisation that was not under the jurisdiction of the respondent State, in the context of a labour dispute that fell fully within the legal authority of that organisation, which had a legal personality distinct from that of its member States, including the host country. Accordingly, the alleged violations of the Convention concerning the disciplinary proceedings within the IOC could not be attributed to the host country concerned. As to the possible liability of the IOC, as the organisation was not a Contracting Party to the Convention, it could not be held responsible under the provisions thereof: incompatible ratione personae.

(See Boivin v. 34 member States of the Council of Europe (dec.), no. 73250/01, Information Note no. 111; Connolly v. 15 member States of the European Union (dec.), no. 73274/01; Galić v. the Netherlands, no. 22617/07; and Blagojević v. the Netherlands, no. 49032/07, Information Note no. 120).

© 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