A.C. v. North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Belgium

The applicant claimed responsibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for the acts performed by the organization during a peacekeeping operation authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

The Tribunal of Brussel declared that it lacked jurisdiction, recognizing the jurisdictional immunity of NATO from national judicial proceedings. The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision.

The applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court for the review the legitimacy of the appeal judgment, claiming that the recognition of NATO immunity had determined an infringement of his right to a remedy enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s arguments. In particular, it considered that the right of access to justice is not absolute, since it may be subject to limitations or restrictions pursuing a legitimate aim. However, limitations cannot impair the core essence of the right to a fair trial. As the affirmed by the Court, such limitations are compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights if they pursue a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.

The Court underlined that States have a long-standing practice of granting immunity from jurisdiction to international organizations under their constituent instruments or additional agreements to ensure their proper functioning. From this standpoint, the rule of immunity from jurisdiction of international organizations pursues a legitimate aim.

The Court also affirmed that in order to determine whether the infringement of fundamental rights is admissible under Article 6, it is necessary to examine- in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – whether the person against whom immunity from jurisdiction is claimed has alternative and reasonable means of redress. According to the Court, recognition of immunity does not constitute a disproportionate deprivation of the right of a fair trial when the applicant can exercise his right before tribunals of NATO’s member States whose military forces have participated in the strike at stake.