CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mars 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 84 March 2006 Cudak v. Lithuania (dec.) - 15869/02 Decision 2.3.2006 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Local employee at foreign embassy unable to bring action for unlawful dismissal in the host country: admissible   Facts : In 1997 the applicant, a Lithuanian national, was recruited to the post of receptionist at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Vilnius. The contract of employment included a clause stating that any dispute arising out of it was to be resolved in accordance with Lithuanian law. In 1999 she lodged a complaint before the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, alleging sexual harassment by a member of the diplomatic staff. The Ombudsman concluded that the applicant had indeed been a victim of harassment. Because of the tension at work she allegedly fell ill and was on sick leave in October-November 1999. When she attempted to return to work she was not authorised to enter the embassy building and was eventually notified that she had been dismissed on the ground of her failure to come to work during one particular week in November 1999. The applicant then brought a civil claim, requesting compensation for unlawful dismissal. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a note verbale , claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts. A regional court discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction and this decision was upheld by a court of appeal. The Supreme Court also found against the applicant. It considered it established inter alia that an agreement between Lithuania and Poland on legal assistance of 1993 had not resolved the question of application of the doctrine of State immunity; that Lithuania had no laws on the question; and that domestic case-law was only developing. The Supreme Court therefore considered it appropriate to decide the case in the light of the general principles of international law, including the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity. It observed that, although Article   479 of the Code of Civil Procedure had established the principle of absolute State immunity, this provision had become inapplicable in practice. It further noted the prevailing international practice to apply the restrictive interpretation of the doctrine of State immunity, according such immunity only for acts performed in the exercise of sovereign power ( acta jure imperii ), as opposed to acts of commercial or private-law nature ( acta jure gestionis ). The Supreme Court went on to state that the Lithuanian law permitted application of limited State immunity. It also specified a number of criteria to be assessed in order to decide the question of jurisdiction in such cases. While the lower courts had not examined the question of applying the doctrine of limited State immunity, that question had now been properly examined at cassation instance. The Supreme Court also noted that its decision did not prevent the applicant from bringing an action before the Polish courts. Admissible.   © 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