African Development Bank Case

JurisdictionFrance
CourtCourt of Cassation (France)
Date25 janvier 2005
France, Court of Cassation (Labour Chamber).

Sargos, President

African Development Bank Case

Jurisdiction Conflicts of jurisdiction International jurisdiction Immunity from jurisdiction Effects Limits Powers of the judiciary Excessive exercise of powers Denial of justice Impossibility of a party to bring claim in a recognized jurisdiction

International organizations African Development Bank Immunity Limits International conventions Diverse accords and conventions Khartoum Accord of 1963 (African Development Bank) Article 52 Immunity from jurisdiction Limits The law of France

Summary: The facts:MX, a French national and former employee of the African Development Bank, alleged that she was owed indemnification and premium payments after her employment with the Bank was terminated. The African Development Bank, an international organization based in Cte d'Ivoire, applied to discharge the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Held:MX could bring her claim in a French court, although there was otherwise no link to France, and despite the existence of an immunity clause in the African Development Bank's foundational document, because MX was a French national and because she would otherwise be unable to bring her claim in any other jurisdiction.

The following is the text of the judgment of the Court:

According to the challenged decision, MXwas hired by the African Development Bank in 1992 and was removed from her functions there by a letter from the president of this international organization dated 20 November 1995.

The instant action was brought regarding the justiciability of an action for payment of indemnities and premiums exercised by a former international employee (MX) against her former employer, an international organization, the African Development Bank, situated in the Cte d'Ivoire. The Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff was employed by an international organization that exercised its functions in Africa, and that, due to these facts, proper jurisdiction was not established because only one party involved was a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that, therefore, the court could not adjudicate claims brought under the rights and liberties created by the Convention. The Court of Appeal exceeded its powers under Article 52 of the August 1963 Accord creating the African Development Bank and Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it held that a tribunal could refuse to take jurisdiction of such...

Pour continuer la lecture

SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT