Scimet v. African Development Bank

The case concerned a contractual claim brought by a Belgian company, Scimet, against the African Development Bank (AfDB) before the Belgian courts. The claimant sought payment for services allegedly rendered in connection with a rainwater purification project in Chad. The AfDB raised a preliminary objection of inadmissibility, invoking its immunity from jurisdiction under the Agreement establishing the African Development Bank, concluded in Khartoum on 4 August 1963 and incorporated in Belgium in 1981.

The Court first examined the legal basis of the Bank’s immunity. It recalled that, under Articles 50 and 52 of the Khartoum Agreement, the AfDB enjoys immunity from jurisdiction in respect of all legal proceedings, subject only to an express exception relating to proceedings arising from the exercise of its borrowing powers. The Court emphasised that these treaty provisions had full legal effect in Belgium by virtue of the national law approving the Agreement.
The claimant argued that the Bank’s immunity was functionally limited, relying on the wording of Article 50, which links the grant of immunities to the achievement of the Bank’s objectives and the performance of its functions. According to the claimant, immunity should therefore be denied where the Bank acted outside the scope of those functions. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Article 50 merely explained the rationale for granting immunity and did not restrict its scope. The Court noted that, where the drafters intended to limit immunity, they had done so expressly, as demonstrated by other provisions of the Agreement.

The Court further found that, in any event, the activities at issue fell squarely within the Bank’s mandate. Participation in a project aimed at improving water infrastructure and supporting economic and social development in Chad, carried out in cooperation with the African Development Fund, constituted conduct within the Bank’s statutory objectives and functions as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement.

The claimant also sought to rely on the exception to immunity relating to borrowing powers under Article 52. After examining the relevant loan agreements, the Court concluded that the dispute did not arise from the exercise by the AfDB of its own borrowing powers within the meaning of that provision. The exception was therefore inapplicable.
The Court accordingly held that the AfDB enjoyed jurisdictional immunity in the proceedings. It declared the claim inadmissible and ordered the claimant to bear the costs, reaffirming the primacy of treaty-based immunity of international organizations before domestic courts.