Mukoro v. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

The case concerns a complaint of discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 brought against the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Mr Landriaul, an official of the Bank, before the Industrial Tribunal of London.

The applicant claimed that European Bank, through Mr Landriault acting on its behalf, had committed a discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s race when it rejected his application for employment. Upholding the defense of immunity advanced by the Bank, the Tribunal dismissed the case. As it observed, the Headquarter Agreement concluded between the Bank and the United Kingdom, provides the Bank with immunity from legal process except as insofar as the Bank has waived its immunity. The provisions of the Headquarters Agreement were implemented under the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991, enacted pursuant to the 1968 International Organizations Act.

The applicant appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, arguing that the immunities of the Bank and its employees cannot bar a complaint of racial discrimination and that, when the alleged facts had occurred, the 1991 Order was not yet entered into force.

The Appeal Tribunal firstly underlined that the question of immunity of international organizations requires a careful examination, given its implications on the individual right of a judicial remedy. Unlike Bank employees, who can rely on alternative remedies within the organization, the applicant would be completely unprotected, as he did not pass the organization’s recruitment process.

However, despite these considerations, the Appeals Tribunal held that the Bank was immune from the applicant’s claims.

As highlighted by the Appeals Tribunal, jurisdictional immunity is a necessary means of ensuring and protecting the functioning of organizations from external interference. The Court also observed that the immunity granted to the Bank and its agents concerns all the official activities of the Bank. As it held, the official activities of the Bank include the administrative practice of selecting staff members and employees. According to the Appeals Tribunal allegations of misconduct, discrimination and unfair practices have no impact on the immunity granted to the Bank and its officials. On this point, it affirmed that “the purpose of conferring immunity is to protect the relevant organization from having legal proceedings brought against it for alleged wrongs, whether those wrongs have actually been committed by the organization or not”.

As also noted by the Court, the Order was already in force when the applicant brought the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal