Filcamas v. United States

The Italian Federation of Commerce, Tourism and Services Workers – Filcams, which has established its own trade union representatives at the United States NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Military Installation, has filed a complaint with the labour section of the Court of Vicenza, in its capacity as the trade union association of Italian civilian workers at US bases, regarding the anti-union conduct it claims to have suffered. The Tribunal of first instance dismissed the case, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to evaluate the claims advance against the United States. The Court of Appeal confirmed the latter judgment. On appeal lodged by Filcamas, the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion, holding that Italian courts have jurisdiction on labour disputes involving the civilian employees of the United States Installations and NATO installations established in Italy.

Although the case mainly concerns the immunity of the defendant State, the Supreme Court’s ruling also addresses issues relating to the immunity of international organizations, and in particular NATO and its articulations, in labour disputes brought before Italian courts.

In this regard, the Supreme Court clarified that the Agreement distinguishes between international staff and civilian staff employed for local needs, whose employment relationship is subject to the legislation and jurisdiction of the Italian State.

As concerns the scope of NATO’s immunity, the Court affirmed that “the London Convention and the Paris Agreement, therefore, do not constitute a lex specialis that derogates, by way of exception, from the principle of immunity from jurisdiction of foreign States and international organizations in relation to a specific category of workers. On the contrary, the provisions contained therein reflect the customary regime of immunity, implemented at the domestic level through Article 10 of the Constitution”.

In the context of civil service employment relationships, NATO headquarters and similar bodies do not act as organs of international subjects, but as holders of private law capacities recognized by the national legal system in which they operate. As emphasized by the Court, civilian personnel do not participate in the performance of the organization’s essential functions. Such employment relationships therefore qualify as private law activities and are excluded from the scope of limited immunity.

The Court stated that the restricted immunity model is the only one compatible with the principles set out in the Constitution, which require a balance between immunity and the right to a legal remedy.

On the basis of these premises, the Court ruled that disputes brought by trade unions against foreign states and international organizations fall within the jurisdiction of national courts.