The document summarizes a 1950 Austrian Supreme Court case that established the restrictive state immunity doctrine. The case involved a trademark dispute between an Austrian representative of a German cosmetics company and a Czechoslovak state-owned company. The Court conducted an in-depth analysis of international law and found that absolute state immunity was no longer generally accepted. It examined case law from other countries and determined that under customary international law, foreign states were not immune for commercial activities and could be subject to jurisdiction of Austrian courts.
Original Description:
case summary about immunity from suit of a foreign state
The document summarizes a 1950 Austrian Supreme Court case that established the restrictive state immunity doctrine. The case involved a trademark dispute between an Austrian representative of a German cosmetics company and a Czechoslovak state-owned company. The Court conducted an in-depth analysis of international law and found that absolute state immunity was no longer generally accepted. It examined case law from other countries and determined that under customary international law, foreign states were not immune for commercial activities and could be subject to jurisdiction of Austrian courts.
The document summarizes a 1950 Austrian Supreme Court case that established the restrictive state immunity doctrine. The case involved a trademark dispute between an Austrian representative of a German cosmetics company and a Czechoslovak state-owned company. The Court conducted an in-depth analysis of international law and found that absolute state immunity was no longer generally accepted. It examined case law from other countries and determined that under customary international law, foreign states were not immune for commercial activities and could be subject to jurisdiction of Austrian courts.
one c%se extensively %ddresses the problems of identifying the content of custom%ry rules. It is the well-known Hoffm%nn v. Dr%lle or Dr%lle v. Czechoslov%ki% c%se,36 % le%ding 1950 Austri%n Supreme Court c%se con- firming the restrictive st%te immunity doctrine. Its exempl%ry discussion of custom%ry intern%tion%l l%w rightfully g%ve it % pl%ce in v%rious prominent textbooks even beyond the Germ%n spe%king world.37 The c%se %rose from % complex tr%de m%rk dispute between Mr. Hoffm%nn, the Austri%n represent%tive of the Germ%n cosmetics m%nuf%cturer ‘Georg Dr%lleʼ %nd the st%te-owned comp%ny ‘Jiri Dr%lleʼ, the Czech br%nch of the Germ%n firm which h%d been n%tion%lized by Czechoslov%ki% %fter World W%r II. While the subst%nce of the dispute rel%ted to the potenti%l extr%territori%l effect of the Czechoslov%k n%tion%liz%tion decree (which w%s eventu%lly denied) the prelimin%ry question for the courts w%s whether % foreign st%te could be sued before Austri%n courts with reg%rd to % dispute involving the use of tr%dem%rks. The cl%im%nt h%d sought %n injunction %g%inst the Czechoslov%k st%te-owned comp%ny to restr%in it from cl%iming the exclusive right to use the Dr%lle tr%dem%rk in Austri%. The Austri%n Supreme Court c%me to the conclusion th%t since the respondentʼs cl%im to immunity from jurisdiction concerned the commerci%l %ctivities of % foreign sovereign st%te r%ther th%n its politic%l %ctivities, the respondent w%s subject to the jurisdiction of the Austri%n courts.38 While this result is not surprising under % restrictive immunity st%nd%rd,39 the rem%rk%ble p%rt of the decision is the thorough %nd in-depth %n%lysis which led the Court to conclude th%t the doctrine of %bsolute st%te immunity w%s no longer gener%lly %ccepted %nd th%t there w%s thus no custom%ry intern%tion%l l%w oblig%tion to %ccord immunity to Czechoslov%ki%. After %n initi%l ex%min%tion of the pertinent Austri%n c%se-l%w on st%te immunity, where in ten of its previous decisions immunity h%d been p%rtly denied where % respondent st%te h%d %cted like % priv%te undert%king, the Supreme Court concluded th%t ‘it c%nnot be s%id th%t there is %ny uniformity of c%se l%w in so f%r %s concerns the extent to which foreign st%tes %re subject to Austri%n jurisdiction.ʼ40 It then turned to %n %n%lysis of foreign jurisprudence, recognizing th%t the issue whether foreign st%tes were immune reg%rding their commerci%l %ctivities w%s % question of intern%tion%l l%w %nd th%t such % potenti%l rule of custom%ry intern%tion%l l%w could be %scert%ined best by %n%lysing the judici%l pr%ctice of st%tes. In the courtʼs words: In view of the f%ct th%t we %re here concerned with % question of intern%tio- n%l l%w we h%ve to ex%mine the pr%ctice of the courts of civilised countries %nd to find out whether from th%t pr%ctice we c%n deduce % uniform view; this is the only method of %scert%ining whether there still exists % principle of intern%tion%l l%w to the effect th%t foreign st%tes, even in so f%r %s concerns cl%ims belonging to the re%lm of priv%te l%w, c%nnot be sued in the courts of % foreign st%te.41
(G.R. No. L-6897. November 29, 1956.) in The Matter of The Claim For Attorney's Fees. CLARO M. RECTO, Claimant-Appellee, v. ESPERANZA P. de Harden and Fred M. Harden