Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany

The Applicant claimed that Germany had deprived him from his right to judicial remedy, protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in respect of his claim for restitution of a property.

As alleged by the applicant, the property was confiscated by the former Czechoslovakia under Decree no. 12 on the confiscation and accelerated allocation of agricultural property of German and Hungarian persons and of those having committed treason and acted as enemies of the Czech and Slovak people. The applicant instituted a proceeding before the Cologne Regional Court, which declared the application inadmissible, since Article 3, of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation – concluded between France, United Kingdom, United States and Germany – excludes the jurisdiction of german courts in respect of legal actions concerning properties occupied or confiscated during the occupation.

The European Court of Human Rights underlined that the right of access to courts under Article 6 is not absolute. In this regard, the Court reminded the precedent of Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, affirming that “where States establish international organisations in order to pursue or strengthen their cooperation in certain fields of activities, and where they attribute to these organisations certain competences and accord them immunities, there may be implications as to the protection of fundamental rights. It would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, however, if the Contracting States were thereby absolved from their responsibility under the Convention in relation to the field of activity covered by such attribution. In determining whether granting an international organisation immunity from national jurisdiction is permissible under the Convention, a material factor is whether reasonable alternative means were available to protect effectively the rights under the Convention“.

However, in the instant case, the Court underlined that “the particular status of the Federal Republic of Germany under public international law after the Second World War” distinguishes the present case from the precedent of Waite and Kennedy.