Robert v Public Prosecutor (France)
| Jurisdiction | France |
| Date | 29 mai 1990 |
| Court | Court of Cassation (France) |
(Camille Bernard, President and Rapporteur; Dontenwille, Advocate-General)
State immunity Jurisdictional immunity Dispute concerning contract of employment French national employed as security officer at United States Embassy Whether ambassador enjoying jurisdictional immunity from proceedings instituted before municipal courts
Diplomatic relations Immunity Employment dispute Claim against ambassador brought by embassy employee before municipal courts Whether ambassador entitled to immunity Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 31(1) The law of France
Summary:The facts:The plaintiff was employed as a security officer at the United States Embassy in Paris from 1972 until 1986, when he was dismissed. He claimed damages before the French courts. At first instance, his claim was held to be admissible but the Procureur de la Rpublique intervened and appealed. The Court of Appeal of Paris allowed the appeal, holding that the United States enjoyed jurisdictional immunity from the claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Cassation.
Held:The appeal was dismissed.
Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, provided that an ambassador enjoyed immunity from civil jurisdiction. It followed that the judgment under appeal was properly justified in law.
The following is the text of the judgment of the Court:
It appears, from the findings of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Paris of 7 October 1988, that Mr Robert was engaged on 1 January 1972 as a security officer at the United States Embassy in Paris and that he was dismissed on 4 April 1986.
Mr Robert argues that the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that the appeal lodged by the Procureur de la Rpublique against the judgment rendered in his favour by the Employment Tribunal (Conseil de Prud'hommes) of Paris was admissible. According to the appellant, only the parties to the proceedings at first instance which gave rise to the judgment of the Court of Appeal could lodge an appeal [The appellant argued that, although the Procureur de la Rpublique had appeared at two conciliation hearings, he had not participated in the hearing before the Conseil de Prud'hommes and was not therefore entitled to lodge an appeal. The Court rejected this argument on the basis that Article 423 of the New Code of Civil Procedure provided that it was admissible for the...
Pour continuer la lecture
SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI