531
dECLARATION OF JUdgE AD HOC gAJA
1. In the present case, the Court is considering the question of the
jurisdictional immunity of a foreign State with regard to claims by indif -
viduals who suffered from infringements of international humanitarian f
law during belligerent occupation. One can well understand the greek
government’s wish to be involved in the discussion. The question of
immunity in these circumstances had been addressed by several greek
courts and also by the European Court of Human Rights when it exam -
ined an application made against greece. However, the only opportunity
provided by the Statute and the Rules for a State which is not a party tfo
the proceedings to express its views on an issue of general internationafl
law is to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute and address the issue if
it is relevant to the intervention.
2. When Article 62 requires the intervening State to have “an interest
of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case”f, it has
to be assumed that the interest in question must exist according to intefr -
national law. In my opinion, the presence of an interest of a legal natufre
for greece cannot rest on the fact that one of the submissions in the
Application of the Federal Republic of germany states that
“by declaring greek judgments based on occurrences similar to those
defined above in request No. 1 [civil claims based on violations of
international humanitarian law by the german Reich during World
War II] enforceable in Italy, [the Italian Republic] committed a fur -
ther breach of germany’s jurisdictional immunity”.
In the absence, both under international law and under EU law (see judgf-
ment of the European Court of Justice in Lechouritou, Case C-292/05,
ECR 2007, p. I-1519), of any obligation for Italy to enforce the greek
judgments in question, Italy is free in its relations with greece to apply its
domestic legislation on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judg -
ments and to grant or refuse enforcement for reasons of its own choice. f
greece cannot be said to have any interest of a legal nature in seeing thfe
greek judgments enforced in Italy. The question whether, by making the
greek judgments enforceable in Italy, Italy breached an obligation
towards germany is a matter which concerns only germany and Italy.
For that purpose, the issue at stake is not whether the greek courts which
delivered the judgments should have granted jurisdictional immunity to
germany, but whether Italy breached the jurisdictional immunity of ger -
many by giving effect in Italy to a foreign judgment relating to mattefrs
41
5 CIJ1021.indb 78 13/06/13 14:08 532 jurisdictional immunifties of the state (decfl. gaja)
for which jurisdictional immunity could ex hypothesi be invoked had the
case been brought before an Italian court.
(Signed) giorgio gaja.
42
5 CIJ1021.indb 80 13/06/13 14:08
531
dECLARATION OF JUdgE AD HOC gAJA
1. In the present case, the Court is considering the question of the
jurisdictional immunity of a foreign State with regard to claims by indif -
viduals who suffered from infringements of international humanitarian f
law during belligerent occupation. One can well understand the greek
government’s wish to be involved in the discussion. The question of
immunity in these circumstances had been addressed by several greek
courts and also by the European Court of Human Rights when it exam -
ined an application made against greece. However, the only opportunity
provided by the Statute and the Rules for a State which is not a party tfo
the proceedings to express its views on an issue of general internationafl
law is to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute and address the issue if
it is relevant to the intervention.
2. When Article 62 requires the intervening State to have “an interest
of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case”f, it has
to be assumed that the interest in question must exist according to intefr -
national law. In my opinion, the presence of an interest of a legal natufre
for greece cannot rest on the fact that one of the submissions in the
Application of the Federal Republic of germany states that
“by declaring greek judgments based on occurrences similar to those
defined above in request No. 1 [civil claims based on violations of
international humanitarian law by the german Reich during World
War II] enforceable in Italy, [the Italian Republic] committed a fur -
ther breach of germany’s jurisdictional immunity”.
In the absence, both under international law and under EU law (see judgf-
ment of the European Court of Justice in Lechouritou, Case C-292/05,
ECR 2007, p. I-1519), of any obligation for Italy to enforce the greek
judgments in question, Italy is free in its relations with greece to apply its
domestic legislation on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judg -
ments and to grant or refuse enforcement for reasons of its own choice. f
greece cannot be said to have any interest of a legal nature in seeing thfe
greek judgments enforced in Italy. The question whether, by making the
greek judgments enforceable in Italy, Italy breached an obligation
towards germany is a matter which concerns only germany and Italy.
For that purpose, the issue at stake is not whether the greek courts which
delivered the judgments should have granted jurisdictional immunity to
germany, but whether Italy breached the jurisdictional immunity of ger -
many by giving effect in Italy to a foreign judgment relating to mattefrs
41
5 CIJ1021.indb 78 13/06/13 14:08 531
dÉCLARATION dE m. LE JUgE AD HOC gAJA
[Traduction]
1. dans la présente affaire, la Cour était appelée à se prononcer sur la
question de l’immunité de juridiction d’un Etat étranger àf l’égard de récla -
mations formulées par des personnes ayant été victimes d’attfeintes au
droit international humanitaire en temps d’occupation de guerre. La vfo-
lonté du gouvernement grec de prendre part au débat se comprend aisé -
ment. La question de l’immunité dans de telles circonstances a éfté examinée
par plusieurs juridictions grecques ainsi que par la Cour européenne fdes
droits de l’homme lorsque celle-ci a eu à connaître d’une requête dirigée
contre la grèce. Toutefois, au regard du Statut et du Règlement, la seule
possibilité pour un Etat qui n’est pas partie à une instance d’exprimer son
point de vue sur une question de droit international général est df’intervenir
en vertu de l’article 62 du Statut et de s’exprimer sur cette question si
celle-ci est en rapport avec l’objet de l’intervention.
2. Lorsque l’article 62 exige qu’« un intérêt d’ordre juridique [soit] en
cause» pour l’Etat souhaitant intervenir, force est de supposer que l’finté -
rêt en question doit exister en droit international. de mon point de vue,
l’existence d’un intérêt juridique de la grèce ne peut être déduite du fait
que la République fédérale d’Allemagne a formulé dans sa frequête, entre
autres conclusions, la suivante :
«en déclarant exécutoires des décisions judiciaires grecques fonfdées
sur des faits comparables à ceux qui sont mentionnés au point 1 ci-
dessus [des actions civiles fondées sur des violations du droit inter-
national humanitaire commises par le Reich allemand au cours de la
seconde guerre mondiale], la République italienne a commis une autre
violation de l’immunité de juridiction de l’Allemagne».
Etant donné que ni le droit international ni le droit européen (vfoir l’arrêt
de la Cour de justice des communautés européennes dans l’affafire Lechou ‑
ritou, C-292/05, Rec. 2007, p. I-1519) n’obligent l’Italie à exécuter les déci-
sions grecques en question, celle-ci est libre, dans le cadre de ses relations
avec la grèce, d’appliquer sa législation interne en matière de reconfnais -
sance et d’exécution des jugements étrangers, et d’en accepter ou refuser
l’exécution pour les raisons qui lui sont propres. La grèce ne peut être
considérée comme ayant un quelconque intérêt d’ordre jurifdique à ce que
les décisions de ses tribunaux soient exécutées en Italie. La qfuestion de
savoir si, en rendant ces décisions exécutoires sur son sol, l’fItalie a man -
qué à l’une de ses obligations envers l’Allemagne est une qufestion qui
intéresse ces deux Etats et eux seuls. pour y répondre, il ne s’agit pas
de déterminer si les tribunaux grecs qui ont rendu ces décisions aurafient
dû accorder l’immunité de juridiction à l’Allemagne, maisf si l’Italie a en-
41
5 CIJ1021.indb 79 13/06/13 14:08 532 jurisdictional immunifties of the state (decfl. gaja)
for which jurisdictional immunity could ex hypothesi be invoked had the
case been brought before an Italian court.
(Signed) giorgio gaja.
42
5 CIJ1021.indb 80 13/06/13 14:08 immunités juridictionfnelles de l’état (décfl. gaja) 532
freint l’immunité de juridiction de l’Allemagne en donnant efffet en Italie
à un jugement étranger portant sur des questions à l’égard desqueflles
l’immunité de juridiction aurait par hypothèse pu être invoquée si l’affaire
avait été portée devant la justice italienne.
(Signé) giorgio gaja.
42
5 CIJ1021.indb 81 13/06/13 14:08
Declaration of Judge ad hoc Gaja