INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org Twitter Account: @CIJ_ICJ YouTube Channel: CIJ ICJ
LinkedIn page: International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2020/36
11 December 2020
Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France)
The Court delivers its Judgment on the merits of the case
The Court finds that the building at 42 avenue Foch in Paris has never acquired the status of
“premises of the mission” within the meaning of Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, and that France has not breached
its obligations under that Convention
THE HAGUE, 11 December 2020. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, has today delivered its Judgment on the merits of the case
concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France).
In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court
(1) Finds, by nine votes to seven, that the building at 42 avenue Foch in Paris has never acquired
the status of “premises of the mission” of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in the French
Republic within the meaning of Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
(the “Vienna Convention”);
(2) Declares, by twelve votes to four, that the French Republic has not breached its obligations
under the Vienna Convention;
(3) Rejects, by twelve votes to four, all other submissions of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
Before reaching this decision, the Court notes that the Parties disagree on whether the
building at 42 avenue Foch in Paris constitutes part of the premises of Equatorial Guinea’s
diplomatic mission in France and is thus entitled to the treatment afforded under Article 22 of the
Vienna Convention. The Parties also disagree on whether France, by the actions of its authorities in
relation to the building, breached its obligations under that article.
The Court begins by examining the circumstances in which a property acquires the status of
“premises of the mission” within the meaning of Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention. In this
regard, it considers that the Convention cannot be interpreted so as to allow a sending State
unilaterally to impose its choice of mission premises upon the receiving State where the latter has
objected to this choice. The Court further considers that any such objection must be timely and not
arbitrary. Further, it must not be discriminatory in character. Consequently, where the receiving
- 2 -
State objects to the designation by the sending State of certain property as forming part of the
premises of its diplomatic mission, and this objection is communicated in a timely manner and is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in character, that property does not acquire the status of
“premises of the mission”, and therefore does not benefit from protection under Article 22 of the
Convention. Whether or not the aforementioned criteria have been met is a matter to be assessed in
the circumstances of each case.
The Court thus proceeds to examine whether, on the facts before the Court in the present
case, France objected to the designation of the building at 42 avenue Foch in Paris as premises of
Equatorial Guinea’s diplomatic mission and whether any such objection was communicated in a
timely manner, and was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in character.
It begins by examining the diplomatic exchanges of the Parties in the period between
4 October 2011, when Equatorial Guinea first notified France that the property “form[ed] part of
the premises of the diplomatic mission”, and 6 August 2012, shortly after the “attachment of the
building” (saisie pénale immobilière) by the French authorities on 19 July 2012. The Court
considers that the facts recounted demonstrate that, during this period, France consistently
expressed its objection to the designation of the building in question as part of the premises of
Equatorial Guinea’s diplomatic mission.
With regard to the question whether France’s objection was made in a timely manner, the
Court notes that France promptly communicated its objection to the designation of the building at
42 avenue Foch in Paris as premises of Equatorial Guinea’s diplomatic mission following the
notification of 4 October 2011. France then consistently objected to each assertion, on the part of
Equatorial Guinea, that the building constituted the premises of the diplomatic mission, and
maintained its objection to the designation of the building as such. The Court considers that, in the
circumstances of the present case, France objected to the designation by Equatorial Guinea of the
building as premises of its diplomatic mission in a timely manner.
Regarding the question whether France’s objection was non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory
in character, the Court concludes that there existed reasonable grounds, which were known or
should have been known to Equatorial Guinea, for France’s objection to Equatorial Guinea’s
designation of the building as premises of its diplomatic mission. In light of these grounds, the
Court does not consider that the objection by France was arbitrary in character. Additionally,
Equatorial Guinea has not demonstrated that France, in objecting to the designation, has acted in a
discriminatory manner. Therefore, the Court considers that France objected to Equatorial Guinea’s
designation of the building as premises of its diplomatic mission in a timely manner, and that this
objection was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in character.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the building at 42 avenue Foch in Paris has never
acquired the status of “premises of the mission” under the Vienna Convention, and states that the
acts complained of by Equatorial Guinea cannot therefore constitute a breach by France of its
obligations under that Convention. Consequently, the Court concludes that it cannot uphold
Equatorial Guinea’s submissions requesting it to declare that France has an obligation to make
reparation for the harm suffered by Equatorial Guinea and that France must recognize the status of
the building as premises of Equatorial Guinea’s diplomatic mission.
- 3 -
History of the proceedings
The history of the proceedings can be found in press releases Nos. 2016/18, 2016/28,
2016/38, 2018/24 and 2020/34, which are available on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org).
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka,
Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson,
Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa; Judge ad hoc Kateka; Registrar Gautier.
*
President YUSUF appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court;
Vice-President XUE appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge GAJA
appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge SEBUTINDE appends a separate opinion
to the Judgment of the Court; Judges BHANDARI and ROBINSON append dissenting opinions to the
Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc KATEKA appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the
Court.
___________
A summary of the Judgment appears in the document entitled “Summary 2020/4”, to which
summaries of the opinions and declaration are annexed. This press release and the summary and
full text of the Judgment are available on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org), under the heading
“Cases”.
___________
Note: The Court’s press releases are prepared by its Registry for information purposes only
and do not constitute official documents.
___________
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in
April 1946. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for a nine-year term by the General
Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. The seat of the Court is at the
Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). The Court has a twofold role: first, to settle, in
accordance with international law, through judgments which have binding force and are without
appeal for the parties concerned, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give
advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and
agencies of the system.
___________
- 4 -
Information Department:
Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Ms Joanne Moore, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Mr. Avo Sevag Garabet, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)
Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) - The Court delivers its Judgment on the merits of the case - The Court finds that the building at 42 avenue Foch in Paris has never acquired the status of “premises of the mission” within the meaning of Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and that France has not breached its obligations under that Convention