X v European Patent Organization

A former employee of the Dutch Office of the European Patent Organization (EPO) filed a lawsuit against EPO before the District Court of the Hague, complaining the unilateral termination of the employment and the violation by EPO of the duty of care. In addition, the applicant claimed the tort liability of the respondent organization for the damages suffered as a consequence of the termination of his employment.

Before the District Court, EPO invoked its immunity from legal process pursuant to the Treaty Establishing the European Patent Organization and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organization. As it also pointed out, the Treaty allows staff members to bring employment disputes to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT), following the exhaustion of EPO internal mechanisms of redress. Such procedure would represent the exclusive mean of resolution of employment disputes. The District Court upheld the respondent’s objection and dismissed the case. Sized by the applicant, the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of first instance, finding that EPO was immune from the jurisdiction of national courts. According to the Court of Appeal, the functional immunity of international organizations covers employment disputes.

The applicant appealed the latter judgment before the Supreme Court, claiming that the Court of Appeal had erroneously characterized the dispute as an employment dispute. In addition, he claimed that the EPO internal procedure and the procedure before ILOAT were not consistent with the standard of a fair trial required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Supreme Court firstly reminded the functional nature of the jurisdictional immunity of international organization. As it affirmed, “the basis of the immunity of international organizations lies in the need for it protect the functioning of international organizations. However, it also stressed that “the immunity of international organizations must include a distinction  between official and unofficial activities of the organization. The official activities are activities related to achieving the purpose of the organization and are in principle subject to immunity. Unofficial activities are outside of immunity”.

According to the Supreme Court, the relationships between an international organization and its employees, who participate in the performance of its institutional activities, regard the internal affairs of the organization. Thus, international organizations are immune from employment-related claims. In this regard, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had correctly qualify the case as an employment dispute.

The Supreme Court held that the recognition of EPO’s immunity did not infringe the appellant’s right to a legal remedy under Article 6 ECHR. Referring to the Waite and Kennedy case before the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court pointed out that recognizing the immunity of an organization constitutes a limitation on the right of access to the courts that is permissible, insofar as it is legitimate and proportionate, when that organization has provided adequate alternative means of redress. In the Court’s view, the dispute resolution procedure before the ILO administrative tribunal offers an adequate means of protection.