The International Court of Justice ruled today that Italy is violating Germany’s sovereign immunity by allowing civil claims of victims of Nazi atrocities during World Ward Two. Italy was disappointed, hoping the ICJ would open the way for other reparations claims. The German representatives walked out of the Peace Palace in The Hague smiling, unscathed after a four-year row between the two European countries.

By Maike Winters in The Hague

The legal battle began in 2004 when Italian citizen Luigi Ferrini claimed he had the right to compensation from the German government for being deported as a forced labourer to Nazi Germany in 1944. The Italian Supreme Court decided he was right, after which 80 other victims of the ‘Third Reich’ filed damages claims. Germany refused to pay, arguing that it has sovereign immunity.

State immunity gives a country protection from being sued in the courts of other states. Until the late nineteenth century most European countries were run by monarchies who argued they were appointed by God and as a result were not subject to prosecution. This idea forms the basis the current law on state immunity which is grounded in 'customary international law'.

In today’s decision, Presiding Judge Hisashi Owada stated: ‘The court considers the rule of state immunity plays an important role. It is a fundamental principle of the international legal order.’ While he ruled in favour of Germany, Judge Owada told the representatives of the two countries to keep talking and find a solution.

Category

Lawyer Paolo Pucci di Benisichi, representing Italy, said after the hearing that he was surprised and regretful. “We appreciate the invitation to continue the negotiations with Germany.” He regrets that it had to be taken all the way to the ICJ in The Hague. According to him, Italian victims and relatives should have gotten their compensation right after the war, when other victims received their share of reparations. But these victims and relatives are in a different category, they didn’t have the right to reparations when the war was over.”

“If the category of military internees had not have been excluded from the scope of those who take benefit from the law on reparations, probably all of this could have been avoided,” he told RNW.

Champagne

Meanwhile representing the German side, Christian Tomuschat came out of the room smiling. “I am satisfied. I don’t know if anybody provides champagne here, but it might be a good opportunity to drink some. More or less all our requests have been fulfilled. After the hint that at a certain point Germany should renegotiate with Italy on these military internees, we will definitely do so.”

The relief on German faces today is understandable. Had the judges ruled in favour of Italy, it could have led to victims from all over the world making claims for compensation. Tomuschat: “That’s why I was 99% sure that the judges would rule for us.”

Future negotiations

Italy will check its options for the basis of further negotiations. Pucci di Benisichi: “There are different ways, probably legislative measures. But we have to analyse it with care first… I don’t know what kind of reparations can be made available but it can be some kind of symbolic gesture. Maybe the establishment of some sort of foundation.... There are many ideas floating around and Italy will certainly come up with good ideas. I think in the spirit of good cooperation between the two countries, we will find some solutions.”

Editing by Richard Walker