Alimento de Los Andes S.A. v. Banco de la Provincia del Neuquén and Others (Inter American Development Bank and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)

The applicant filed a civil claim against the Inter-American Development Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development relating to the execution of a contract concluded between the parties. The Tribunal and the Court of Appeal rejected the objection raised by the international organizations, invoking their jurisdictional immunity from national courts. Indeed, , lower Argentinian courts had rejected the banks’ immunity claims by applying the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity used for foreign States.

The Supreme Court of Justice had to assess whether the Tribunal and Court of Appeal correctly established their jurisdiction in the case at stake.

The Supreme Court reversed and established a fundamental distinction between state immunity and the immunity of international organizations. It firstly noted that international customary law does not provide a general regime on the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations. Such immunities rest on specific treaty provisions. In light of the above, the Court affirmed that the distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis, based on the doctrine of restrictive State Immunity, cannot be applied to international organizations.

As the Court recognized, in the case of the IBRD, the immunity is derived from treaties and headquarters agreements. Specifically, Argentina approved its accession to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as the agreement establishing that institution. The latter treaty provides that the Bank is to be granted legal status, immunities, and privileges in the territories of each member State. The treaty further provides that legal actions may be brought against the Bank only before the courts of a member state in whose territory the Bank has established an office, appointed an agent for service of process, or issued or guaranteed securities.

By means of a Decree-Law, the Argentine Republic approved the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, which expressly includes the IBRD among the protected agencies. Moreover, Argentina approved the agreement with the IBRD on the establishment of a resident mission in Buenos Aires, which confirms that the Bank enjoys full judicial immunity, except in matters arising from or related to the exercise of its powers to issue or guarantee securities.

With regard to the Inter-American Development Bank, Argentina became a member by accession. Thus Argentina is a party to the constituent agreement that affirms that the Bank shall enjoy in each of its member countries the legal status, immunities, exemptions and privileges, as recognized by the treaty (art. XI). In addition, the agreement concerning the operation in Buenos Aires of a regional representation of the Inter-American Development Bank and the Institute for the Integration of Latin America reaffirms the immunities established in the constituent agreement. 

Furthermore, the Court underlined that the recognition of the respondents’ immunity does not infringe the right to a remedy of the applicant (Article 18 of the Argentinian Constitution), given the existence of alternative means of internal dispute resolution. Indeed, according to the Court’ s understanding, immunity is only legitimate when alternative dispute resolution mechanisms exist. In the instant case, the Supreme Court held thay the claimant did not demonstrate that the alternative system of dispute resolution (arbitral tribunal) does not satisfy the fair trial guarantees.