Debrework Luleseged Debebe March 27/ 2013

 Parties  Facts  Issue  Rule  Arguments  Conclusion  Discussion questions  My Idea

Plaintiff Abott, a secretary at the embassy of Sout h Africa in Spain Defender The embassy of South Africa in S pain Spain’s high court

 A foreign national employed as a bilingual secretary in the embassy of south Africa in Madrid Spain was dismissed on the ground that she had not performed her job satisfactorily.  The supreme court granted her appeal holding that South Africa did not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and in 1990 the plaintiff obtained judgment in her favor.

 South Africa appealed and an intermediate court held that its bank accounts were absolutely immune from execution.  It dismissed the plaintiff’s request for the enforcement of her judgment and she appealed. She argued that the decision violated her right to effective judicial protection under Article 24(1) of the Spanish Constitution by not apply the doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity

 Whether or not the bank accounts of the embas sy of the Republic of South Africa in Spain are immune from judicial attachment?

 International law bars execution on property of the foreign state used or intended to be used in activiti es of a sovereign nature  According to Article 22(3) & Article 31(4) of the196 1&1963 Vienna conventions, the property of diploma tic and consular missions enjoy absolute immunity fr om execution.  Under the general principles of international law: b ank accounts are exempted from any form of execution.

 The plaintiff argued that the decision her right to effective judicial protection under Article 24(1) of the Spanish Constitution by not apply the doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity.

 Article 22(3) of the Vienna Convention, 1961, that property of the Republic of South Africa situated within the confines of the Embassy, including the Embassy itself, is absolutely immune from execution.

 Therefore, in this case even where the funds in the accounts may also be used for the purposes of activities not involving the foreign state sovereignty, it can be concluded that the attachment of an embassy’s bank account is an act forbidden by the rules of public international law.

 Yes The embassy bank are immune from judgment!

QUESTION Do you think the judgment of this case violated the respondent’s right to effective judicial protection?

 At The Beginning the Spain Embassy has enforces Embassies, account must be regarde d as a single whole, held for the benefit of the diplomatic mission. The accounts of diplomatic missions could not be attached  Considering Spain’s labor law regarding payment of compensation for employees who lost their job, some degree of benefits and considerations must be given.