Stavrinou v. United Nations and Commander of the United Nations Force in Cyprus

Stavirinou, an employee of the Headquarters of the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Nicosia against the United Nations and the UNFICYP’s Commander, claiming their responsibility for an accident occurring during his service.

The District Court dismissed the case, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, given the immunities recognized to the respondents. The District Court also noted that Agreement relating to the Legal Status of the United Nations Force in Cyprus establishes a special procedure for the resolution of the disputes between UNFICYP and locally recruited personnel.

The applicant appealed the judgement before the Supreme Court, arguing that the immunity conferred on UNFICYP and its personnel did not protect the respondent from the instant legal claim, since it did not relate to their official activities. Furthermore, he claimed that the immunity from civil jurisdiction granted to UNFICYP was inconsistent with the right of access to justice enshrined in the national Constitution.

The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s argument, finding that the United Nations and the Commander of UNFICYP was immune from the action filed against them by the applicant. As it underlined, Section 2 of the  1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations established the immunity of the organization from every legal process. The Court also noted that Article 23 of the UNFICYP Agreement, the Force was a subsidiary organ of the United Nations and enjoyed the same status, privileges, and immunities granted to the United Nations under the 1946 Convention. The UNFICYP Agreement also provides that the Commander of UNFICYP enjoyes the same immunties granted to the United Nations Secreatary General under the 1946 Convention. As a result, he was entitlted to the immunties greanted under international law to diplomats.

The Supreme Court also affirmed that the immunity granted to the United Nations, UNFICYP and its Commander do not infringe the applicant’s right to justice (right to a remedy), as in the instant case an internal mechanism of dispute resolution existed.