Headquarters of the Allied Force in Southern Europe v. Capocci Belmonte
Full Case Title: Headquarters of the Allied Force in Southern Europe (HAFSE) v. Capocci Belmonte, Supreme Court (Court of Cassation - Civil Division), judgment of 5 June 1976
Reference Number: Judgment n. 2054
Type of Document: Judicial decisions
International Organization: NATO
Year: 1976
Issuing Body: Supreme Court
Country: Italy
Marcello Capocci Belmonte worked as a legal consultant for the Allied Headquarters in Southern Europe (HAFSE) under a short- term retainer contract. He brought a lawsuit before the Tribunal of Naples against the HAFSE, claiming payment of unpaid remuneration for consulting services provided to the organization. Before the Tribunal, the HAFSE objected the jurisdiction of Italian courts over claims against it in accordance with the Agreement concluded between Italy and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on 26 July 1961 in Paris, which regulates the presence in Italian territory of NATO’ military installations and the personnel employed therein.
The Tribunal of Naples rejected the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction and ruled upon the case, ordering the HAFSE to compensate the applicant. The Tribunal held that, under the 1961 Agreement, only civilian and military personnel hired by authoritative acts for permanent duties and paid according to rates established by NATO are exempt from the jurisdiction of the host State. Such an exemption does not apply to locally recruited personnel whose terms of employment are governed by municipal law. In the case at stake, the applicant performed for the organization a professional activity of a private law character.
The HAFSE appealed the judgment of first instance before the Supreme Court of Cassation, invoking its jurisdictional immunity from the jurisdiction of Italian courts established under the 1961 Agreement between Italy and NATO and the 1952 Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty. In particular, the agreements would distinguish two different categories of NATO’s personnel. The first category would include those employees subject to “an international legal status“ and exempted from the legislations and jurisdiction of host States. The second category, instead, would consist of the locally recruited personnel, employed in the NATO’s headquarters under private law contracts. The appellant pointed out that the duties entrusted to Mr. Capocci did not respond to any local and material need. Instead, according to appellant, the activities performed by Mr. Capocci related to the institutional activities of the HASFE and are regulated by the internal rule of the organization. Consequently, the HASFE would have been immune from the legal action brought against it by Mr. Capocci.
In support of its claim, the HASFE also relied on the general international law rules on the immunity of international organizations. Specifically, it averted that the employment relationships between an international organization and its functionaries are exclusively governed by the internal rules of the organization, when the activities performed by them relate to the institutional functions and objective of the organization.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, stating that national courts have jurisdiction over labour- related claims brought by locally recruited civil personnel employed under private law contracts.
In general terms, the Supreme Court stated that the distinction between institutional and activities of a private law nature is applicable to employment relationships between international organizations and their employees. In its case-law, the Italian Supreme Court applied the distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis in order to verify the existence of Italian jurisdiction in labour disputes against international organizations. Specifically, it qualified the organization of internal offices and the employment relationships as institutional activities protected by the jurisdictional immunity.
However, the Court noted that Article 8 of the 1961 Agreement concerning the installation of the Allied Force Headquarters in Italy clearly distinguishes between personnel with an international status and personnel with a local status. This agreement clearly reserves the exemption from national law and jurisdiction solely to personnel with international status. As highlighted by the Court, the Protocol and the North Atlantic Council’s decision of 10 February 1954 define the international staff as that category of employees on a permanent basis and remunerated on the basis of the organization’s salary scales. In this regard, the Court stressed that two requirements must exist to qualify an employee as an international civil servant of the HASFE subject to an international legal status: a permanent assignment and the application of the application of the salary scales established by the organization internal rules.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the professional relationship between the HASFE and Mr. Capocci was based on a private law contract and, as a result, the terms of his employment were regulated by Italian Law.