DECLARATION OF JUDGE GAJA
Premises of a diplomatic mission Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations Whether Article 22 covers the issue of ownership of the building.
In section (c) of its submissions Equatorial Guinea complains about France’s failure “to
recognize the status of the building located at 42 Avenue Foch in Paris as the property of the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea, and as the premises of its diplomatic mission”. I agree with the
Judgment of the Court that the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations gives the Court jurisdiction over the part of the dispute between the Parties relating to the
use of the building as premises of the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea. However, the
Judgment does not specify that the issue concerning the ownership of the building is not covered by
the Optional Protocol.
When defining the premises of the diplomatic mission, Article 1 (i) of the Vienna
Convention indicates that these are “the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary
thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission”. Ownership of the
premises does not necessarily belong to the sending State. Missions are often located on rented or
leased property. Issues concerning the ownership of buildings that are used for a mission are
regulated by the municipal law of the host State, unless the matter is governed by a treaty (this case
is not relevant for present purposes).
When Article 22, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention sets out that “[t]he premises of the
mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission
shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution”, it does not grant total
immunity to the building. It only refers to forcible measures that interfere with the use of the
building for the diplomatic mission.
Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention states that “[t]he premises of the mission
shall be inviolable”. It does not exclude that the mission should have to move out because of a
change in the ownership of the property. The relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention do not
imply that, once a building has been used for a diplomatic mission, the sending State is entitled to
continue to use it indefinitely for that purpose. Ownership of the premises may change over time.
Except for what may be provided for in a treaty, there is no obligation for the receiving State to let
the sending State continue to use a specific building for its mission. Use of the premises will
depend on contractual arrangements that the sending State may conclude with the owner. The sale
of the property where the premises of a diplomatic mission are located could lawfully lead to
terminating the use of the building for that purpose.
Thus, the issue of the ownership concerning the building located at 42 Avenue Foch must be
distinguished from the issue of inviolability and immunity of the premises of the mission. While
the latter comes within the scope of the Optional Protocol, the part of the dispute over the
ownership of the building is not so covered. Under the Optional Protocol the Court does not have
jurisdiction to decide on that part of the dispute.
(Signed) Giorgio GAJA.
___________
Declaration of Judge Gaja