Information juridique intelligente
 France | +33 170726541

Barrandon v United States of America

International Law Reports Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionFrance
Judgment Date14 juin 1995
CourtCourt of Appeal of Versailles (France)
Date14 juin 1995
France, Court of Cassation (First Civil Chamber).
Court of Appeal of Versailles (Social Chambers in Plenary Session).

(Massip, President; Lemontey, Rapporteur; Flipo, Advocate-General)

(Chagny, President and Rapporteur; Duplat, Advocate-General)

Barrandon
and
United States of America

State immunity Jurisdictional immunity Employment dispute Nurse employed by foreign embassy Claim for damages for wrongful dismissal Proper defendant Distinction between jurisdictional immunity of foreign State and of its diplomatic agents Whether foreign State entitled to jurisdictional immunity Test of whether employee performing tasks in the interest of the public service of a foreign State The law of France

Summary: The facts:Madame Barrandon was employed as a nurse and medical secretary at the United States Embassy in Paris from 1964 until 1985, when she was dismissed. She claimed damages before the French courts for wrongful dismissal. At first instance her claim was allowed in part. The Court of Appeal of Paris, on an appeal lodged by Madame Barrandon, increased the award of damages against the Embassy to 400,000 francs. The Procureur Gnral then intervened to appeal to the Court of Cassation, asserting that the United States should be granted the benefit of jurisdictional immunity.

Held (by the Court of Cassation):The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal of Versailles.

(1) The jurisdictional immunity enjoyed by a foreign State was not absolute and was not guaranteed by any international treaty to which France was party. That immunity was a privilege which could only be invoked by a State which believed it was entitled to rely upon it (p. 465).

(2) The immunity from civil jurisdiction enjoyed by the head of a foreign mission, pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, did not apply to acts performed in the name, or on behalf, of the accrediting State (pp. 4656).

(3) The Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied these principles because it had failed to examine whether the defendant to the action was the foreign State itself, represented by its head of mission, or the head of mission in his personal capacity (p. 466).

Held (by the Court of Appeal of Versailles):The claim was inadmissible.

(1) The proceedings had been properly instituted against the United States by service of writs against both the Ambassador in Paris, as representative of a foreign State, and the Head of the Department of Justice in Washington. It made no difference that an initial writ had been incorrectly addressed to the Embassy itself (p. 467).

(2) The immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by foreign States was not absolute and was not guaranteed by any international treaty to which France was party. That immunity was a privilege which could only be invoked by a State which believed it was entitled to rely upon it (p. 468).

(3) The immunity from jurisdiction upon which foreign States could rely was limited to acts of sovereign power (puissance publique) or acts performed in the interest of a public service. The plaintiff had performed her functions for the benefit of civil and military...

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