United States Embassy Employee Case
| Jurisdiction | Austria |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 2019 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Austria) |
| Docket Number | (Case 9 Ob A37/19k) |
(Case 9 Ob A37/19k)
Austria, Supreme Court.
State immunity — Employment — Immunity in disputes arising out of an employment contract with an embassy — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004 — Article 11(1) and (2)(a) of Jurisdictional Immunities Convention constituting customary international law — Whether employee was employed to perform sovereign activities — Whether determinative — Whether States enjoying immunity regarding disputes with employees performing activities closely functionally related to diplomatic and consular functions of the State — The law of Austria
Summary:2The facts:—The plaintiff, an Austrian national, was an employee of the defendant, the United States Embassy in Vienna, from 1974 until her contract of employment was terminated in 2017. Before her contract was terminated, the plaintiff had worked for the Commercial Service, the foreign trade organization of the US Department of Commerce, as a subject specialist for certain industries. Her functions included assisting US companies wishing to enter the Austrian market in various ways, as well as advising Austrian companies on entering the US market.
The plaintiff challenged the termination of her contract before the courts of Austria. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had performed sovereign functions and that it therefore enjoyed State immunity under customary international law as codified in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004.
The court of first instance rejected the plea of State immunity, as the plaintiff was not employed in an area in which the defendant acted with sovereign authority. The defendant appealed. The appellate court upheld the appeal and dismissed the lawsuit. It held that, since the scope of functions of the plaintiff consisted of promoting economic relations between the defendant State and Austria, she had been involved in the fulfilment of one of the official core tasks of a diplomatic mission within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The plaintiff's activities
had therefore also been sovereign and the defendant had correctly invoked its State immunity. The plaintiff appealed.Held:—The appeal was dismissed. The United States enjoyed immunity in proceedings arising out of an employment relationship with an employee engaged in sovereign activities.
(1) In the absence of an applicable treaty, the matter of State immunity for actions arising out of employment relationships had to be assessed on the basis of customary international law. The pertinent norm was codified in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004 (paras. 22–31).
(2) Under customary international law, a State might invoke immunity in employment proceedings if an employee were employed to perform certain functions in the exercise of sovereign authority. Thus, courts did not have to assess exclusively the nature of the transaction, but also the purpose of the work of the employee. The content of an employee's activities and, with regard to diplomatic or consular staff, their functional connection with the diplomatic or consular duties of the sending State were determinative. These diplomatic and consular functions followed from Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 and Article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. They included the promotion and development of commercial and economic relations between the sending State and the receiving State. To the extent that the functions of the employee were closely related to the diplomatic and consular activities of the State, they were to be considered sovereign (paras. 32–41).
The following is the text of the decision of the Court:3
[1] The appeal is not granted.
[2] The plaintiff is obliged to reimburse the defendant for the costs of the appellate proceedings in the amount of EUR 1,489.86 (including EUR 248.31 VAT) within 14 days.
[3] The plaintiff is an Austrian national. Since 1974 she was an employee of the embassy of the respondent in Vienna. The employment was terminated by a letter delivered to the plaintiff on 17 March 2017.
[4] Following her initial employment in the administration as a telephone operator and in the secretariat, the plaintiff at first worked in the Economic and Trade Bureau, attached to the US Department of State. This was subsequently outsourced and taken over by the “Commercial Service”, the foreign trade organization of the US Department of Commerce. The Commercial Service constitutes a small unit within the American embassy in Austria. The plaintiff worked for the Commercial Service and was indirectly subordinate to the Head of the Commercial Affairs Department; in some instances she reported directly to him. She was a subject specialist for the IT-Telecom, Tourism and Aviation industries and some smaller departments. She had to coordinate her decisions with superiors through an approval procedure. Her name appeared in correspondence with Austrian companies; in correspondence with the defendant, documents were prepared by the embassy counsellor or the chargé d'affairs.
[5] A job description of the plaintiff from 2003 states, with regard to the basic functions of the position, among other things:
Serves as trade expert of the trade department in Austria and has area responsibility for the main areas of information technology, which includes network hardware and services, internet services, aviation and defence as well as travel and tourism, and develops strategies for companies wishing to enter the global market. Supports US companies to export to Austria, by identifying local buyers, agents/retailers and subsequently developing a market entry strategy. Provides information regarding tariff regulations, licensing requirements, trade restrictions, trade regulations, as well as relevant laws and technical information on specific products that facilitate product entry into Austria. Recommends to company representatives Austrian government officials and business people to meet, attends meetings with them and advocates for them as appropriate. … Maintains a wide range of contacts with key officials in the course of these areas and in key ministries of the Austrian government. Conducts research and prepares factual and analytical reports on...
Um weiterzulesen
Jetzt Kostenlos StartenVollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten