Jananyagam v. Commonwealth Secretariat

Ms Jananyagam brought to the Employment Tribunal of the United Kingdom a complaint against the Commonwealth Secretariat under the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Race Relations Act of 1976. The respondent organization plead its immunity from national jurisdiction pursuant to the Commonwealth Secretariat Act. The Tribunal upheld the plea of immunity and dismissed the case.

The applicant appealed the judgment of first instance, claiming that the immunity granted to the Commonwealth Secretariat cannot bar her claims. As she argued, the respondent organization should be considered a “public authority” within the meaning of the 1998 Human Rights Act and, thus, it must ensure the respect of human rights. Accordingly, the respondent organizations should have chosen not to avail itself of its immunity, so as not to infringe the applicant’s right to legal protection. As she claimed, the recognition of the respondent’s immunity has violated her rights to a judicial remedy and fair trial enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Employment Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant’s argument, holding that the Commonwealth Secretariat is immune from employment-related claims.

As it affirmed, “norms of International Law are automatically recognized by the courts as part of the common law. It is such a norm that an international organization enjoys some immunities from suit within the country where it is located”.

The Appellate Tribunal then assessed whether the immunity of the Commonwealth Secretariat – enshrined in a specific international rule and implemented in the Commonwealth Secretariat Act – interferes with the right of access to justice provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR. Referring to the previous case of Waite and Kennedy before the European Court of Human Rights, the Tribunal noted that the recognition of the immunity of organizations pursues a legitimate aim.

The immunities of international organizations are necessary to ensure that they can perform their functions without unilateral interference from individual States. The court then found that the restriction on the right of access to the courts, resulting from the recognition of immunity, is not disproportionate to the aim pursued by immunities. In the case in question, there was an internal redress mechanism.