Anonymous v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

The case originates from a labour complaint of wrongful termination of employment instituted against the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), by a former employee.

The Court of first instance dismissed the case, declaring that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Article 9 of the Austria-OPEC Headquarters Agreement, which provides that OPEC enjoys absolute immunity from “every form of legal process”.

The claimant submitted a constitutional appeal maintaining that Article 9 of the Austria-OPEC Headquarters Agreement violates the right to an effective legal remedy enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has constitutional law status in Austria, and requested the Austrian Constitutional Court to declare Article 9 unconstitutional. The respondent organization and the Austrian Government maintained that, regardless of any conflict between the Headquarters Agreement and the ECHR, the absolute immunity from civil suits of international organizations is established under customary international law.

According to the Constitutional Court, the application is well-founded, since – in light of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on international organizations immunity and the right to an effective remedy –  Article 9 of the Headquarters Agreement is in breach of Article 6 ECHR. The Court stressed that Article 9 of the Agreement affects civil rights, limiting access to justice. The Court noted that OPEC did not establish an internal mechanism of employment dispute resolution. Such restriction cannot be considered compatible with the obligations under Article 6 ECHR, given the absence of alternative means of redress available for OPEC employees.

Referring to well-established jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Right on the right of access to justice, and in particular to the case of Waite and Kennedy, the Constitutional Court held that “affording jurisdictional immunity to an international organization is consistent with the ECHR only insofar as reasonable alternative means to grant effective protection to individual rights exist . In the absence of an adequate mechanism of redress, granting of immunity from national jurisdiction would represent a limitation to the right of a remedy not proportionate to the aim pursued (i.e. avoiding undue interference in the activities of the organization)“.

As a consequence, the Court declared Article 9 of the agreement unconstitutional.