Dutto v UN High Commissioner for Refugees

• Jurisdicción: Argentina
• Fecha: 31 Mayo 1989
• Emisor: Federal Court of Appeals (Argentina)

Argentina, National Labour Court of Appeal (Second Chamber)

(Dr Gonzlez and Dr Rubio, Judges)

Dutto

and

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

International organizations Immunity Jurisdictional immunity United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations Article IX, Section 31 Duty of agencies to make available alternative procedures for the settlement of disputes

International organizations Immunity Waiver Effect of failure of international organization to lodge a reply to proceedings brought against it Whether ever constituting waiver Requirement of express statement of waiver Passage of time following service of writ without reply Whether constituting proof of refusal to submit to jurisdiction The law of Argentina

Summary: The facts:The plaintiff brought a claim against the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees before an Argentinian Labour Court.1 The Court rejected the claim on the ground that the defendant was entitled to jurisdictional immunity as an international organization. The plaintiff appealed.

Held:The appeal was dismissed.

(1) The fact that a specialized agency of the United Nations was entitled to immunity certainly did not mean that the interests of third parties were thereby deprived of all protection. Such persons were entitled to have recourse to the procedures established under Article IX, Section 31, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, 1947.

(2) Consequently a specialized agency was entitled to refuse to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the municipal courts simply by failing to waive its immunity. Such a course could not result in any sanction against that agency because its failure to reply to the claim could not be interpreted as an acceptance of jurisdiction, which required an express statement.

(3) Correspondingly, a claim for submission to the jurisdiction of the court, lodged against a member of a foreign embassy, was implicitly refused,

in the absence of any reply, by reason of the passage of time since service of the writ and subsequent repeated service

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

Dr Gonzlez: The applicant has appealed against a decision at first instance by which it was decided that the sanctions contained in Section 18 of Decree-Law 1285/58 should not be applied in this case, on the ground that the defendant cannot in...