S. J. v. International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory

The case concerned a provisional labour measure brought by an employee of the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL), who sought the suspension of what he characterised as an unlawful dismissal. The applicant had entered into a four-year fixed-term contract governed expressly by the organisation’s Staff Rules. Near the end of the term, an internal review recommended not converting his contract into an indefinite one. INL then communicated that the agreement would expire on the date initially foreseen. The applicant argued that this communication amounted to a dismissal disguised as contractual expiry, contending that the contract should be treated as an indefinite one under Portuguese labour law. He further maintained that INL’s internal regulations could not displace mandatory national labour legislation.

The first-instance court dismissed the request outright, holding that the employment relationship was governed by INL’s Staff Rules, which formed part of the organization’s autonomous legal order. On appeal, the applicant challenged that conclusion and further contended that INL’s jurisdictional immunity should be set aside, as he lacked access to the dispute-settlement mechanism foreseen in the Staff Rules, namely, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT). INL, however, had never recognised the jurisdiction of that tribunal as required under Article 2(5) of the ILOAT Statute.

The Court of Appeal first examined whether national courts could exercise jurisdiction in light of the immunity granted to INL under Article 5 of its Headquarters Agreement. It confirmed that INL, as an international organization with legal personality and autonomy under its founding Statutes, enjoys immunity from jurisdiction and execution for acts performed in the course of its official functions, and that none of the treaty-based exceptions applied, since the applicant was neither a Portuguese national nor a permanent resident.

The Court emphasized, however, that immunity cannot nullify the fundamental right of access to a tribunal, recognized in Article 20 of the Portuguese Constitution, Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Drawing on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Waite and Kennedy v. Germany (1999), it held that the permissibility of immunity depends on the existence of reasonable alternative means to protect the employee’s rights. Because INL had not recognised the jurisdiction of the ILOAT, the applicant effectively lacked any independent and effective dispute-settlement mechanism.

In that situation, the Tribunal held that immunity could be relativised to the minimum extent necessary to preserve the right of access to justice. The Court thus accepted jurisdiction while reaffirming that the applicable law remained INL’s internal regulatory order, in accordance with Article 8 of the Portuguese Constitution, which requires respect for international legal norms.

Proceeding to an examination of the merits, the Tribunal found no plausible indication of illegality under the Staff Rules. The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract did not constitute a dismissal, and nothing in the internal framework mandated conversion into an indefinite contract. INL’s actions were consistent with the governing regulations, and no serious probability of the applicant’s claim succeeding was demonstrated.

The Tribunal da Relação therefore denied the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the provisional measure, holding that the organization could not be compelled to alter or extend the contract under the circumstances presented.