Romero v. South American Council for Health

The case originates from an employment dispute brought before the Colombian courts, concerning the employee’s financial treatment. The Court rejected the request, holding that issues concerning workers’ remuneration fall outside the scope of protective actions before the Constitutional Court. However, the Court provided several clarification on the relationship between the immunity of international organizations and the individual right to judicial remedies and on the scope of jurisdictional immunity.

The Court affirmed that “the practical effect of jurisdictional immunity is to limit two crucial powers in a social state governed by the rule of law. On the one hand, it limits the right of access to justice for those whose rights are violated by those enjoying this prerogative, and on the other, it limits the constitutional function of administering justice performed by the state’s judicial authorities“. However, as established in its case-law and reminded in the instant case, the jurisdictional immunity is not absolute.

The Court reminded that, in the event that a legal dispute arises between an individual and an international organization, the judicial mechanisms established by the national and international legal system may be invoked so that the conflict is resolved in accordance with the rules in force in the national territory.

Recalling the principles expressed by national jurisprudence regarding the scope of State immunity in labour disputes between foreign embassies and Colombian citizens or residents in Colombia, the Court reiterated that immunity must be excluded when the dispute concerns private law activities. According to the Court, such principle applies to international organizations.