A. v. B. (2012)

The case concerned an attempt by a private creditor (A.) to enforce a seizure order against the salary of a United Nations staff member (B.) employed at the UN Office in Geneva. The creditor relied on a valid order issued under Swiss debt-collection law. After receiving it, the Geneva debt-collection office sought guidance from the Swiss Permanent Mission to the UN. The Mission confirmed that the debtor, as a UN official, did not enjoy personal immunity in relation to a private loan agreement. It nonetheless stressed that no enforcement measure could be carried out against the UN’s assets, including staff salaries, due to the organization’s treaty-based immunities.

The debt-collection office attempted, through diplomatic channels, to notify the UN and obtain the necessary salary information. The UN replied that it was legally unable to execute the seizure or give effect to any measure constituting enforcement against its assets. In light of this, the office concluded that the seizure order could not be executed.

The creditor challenged this outcome before the cantonal authorities and, ultimately, before the Federal Supreme Court. He argued that earlier jurisprudence (see F. SA v. G. of 1995 and Caisse v. Y. of 2003) permitted informal cooperation by international organizations and should therefore have led to a different result.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It held that the debt-collection office had undertaken all steps required under its previous case law, including diplomatic inquiry and informal communication. It further held that the UN’s refusal to carry out the salary seizure was based on its absolute immunity from enforcement, expressly guaranteed by the 1946 Headquarters Agreement. Unlike in previous cases where other organizations had been willing to cooperate informally, the UN made clear that no form of notification or execution of the seizure was legally possible given the inviolability of its assets. The Federal Supreme Court therefore confirmed the impossibility of execution and dismissed the creditor’s appeal.