A diplomat’s immunity from civil jurisdiction does not depend on the severity of their—alleged or actual—legal violations.
2. Section 18 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG) does not violate Article 14 of the Basic Law (GG) or the principle of the rule of law (Article 20(3) GG).
Ruling
I. The plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the Berlin Labor Court dated June 14, 2011 (Case No. 36 Ca 3627/11), is dismissed at her expense.
II. Leave to appeal on points of law (revision) is granted to the plaintiff.
Facts of the Case
In these appellate proceedings, the parties are disputing whether the defendant is subject to German jurisdiction.
The defendant is an accredited attaché at the Embassy of the Kingdom of S. in the Federal Republic of Germany. Since April 3, 2009, he had employed the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest as a domestic worker in his private household. By means of a contract dated February 15, 2011, she assigned claims arising from the employment relationship and its termination to the plaintiff.
In her action, the plaintiff sought compensation for outstanding remuneration, reimbursement of travel expenses, and payment of compensation for pain and suffering. She alleged that the defendant had employed her predecessor in an exploitative manner. Her predecessor was reportedly not permitted to leave the defendant’s household and was compelled to work seven days a week, with working hours extending up to twenty hours a day; during this time, she was allegedly subjected to constant physical abuse and humiliation by the defendant and his family members. Contrary to the contractual agreement, she was not provided with separate accommodation; instead, her predecessor had to sleep on the floor of the children’s room using only a thin blanket, without a mattress or warm clothing. The promised meals reportedly consisted of food scraps. Her predecessor in interest had received no remuneration up until her flight on October 30, 2010; the defendant had merely paid compensation in lieu of vacation following out-of-court negotiations. The defendant had grossly violated her predecessor’s human rights. Given these circumstances, he was not exempt from German jurisdiction.
The defendant argued that the action was inadmissible because, as a diplomat, he enjoyed immunity from legal proceedings. Moreover, the allegations raised against him and his family were unfounded—a fact he could prove.
In a judgment pronounced on June 14, 2011, the Labor Court dismissed the action as inadmissible. It held that the defendant was not subject to German jurisdiction pursuant to Section 18 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG). A diplomat’s immunity from legal proceedings applies even in cases of particularly serious violations of law. To the extent that legitimate claims could not be enforced due to this immunity, the plaintiff’s predecessor would be entitled to a claim for compensation against the Federal Republic of Germany. For details regarding the reasoning, reference is made to the grounds of the contested judgment.
The plaintiff filed an appeal against this judgment—which had been served on her on June 20, 2011—on July 15, 2011, and substantiated it in a written submission received by the Higher Labor Court on August 19, 2011. By an order dated August 22, 2011, the Higher Labor Court directed that the admissibility of the action be heard separately.
The plaintiff maintains that the action is admissible. She argues that the defendant is subject to German jurisdiction. He enjoys immunity only against criminal prosecution, not against civil liability. Civil immunity must yield in cases of serious human rights violations; otherwise, the situation violating human rights would be perpetuated. The defendant has forfeited his immunity through his conduct. Furthermore, the exclusion of German jurisdiction results in an infringement of property rights protected by Article 14 of the Basic Law (GG), without any compensation mechanism applying in this regard; additionally, her right to access to justice would be eliminated without objective justification. Conditions in the Kingdom of S. do not permit the pursuit of her claims against the defendant there. The dispute should, if necessary, be referred to the Federal Constitutional Court to clarify general rules of international law and the constitutionality of Section 18 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG).
Plaintiff’s Motion
to order the defendant—modifying the judgment of the Berlin Labor Court of June 14, 2011 (Case No. 36 Ca 3627/11)—to pay her the gross sum of €14,950.00 plus interest at a rate of five percentage points above the base interest rate on €700.00 since May 1, 2009, and on €750.00 each since the beginning of each month from June 2009 to November 2010; the gross sum of €15,804.00 plus interest at a rate of five percentage points above the base interest rate on €7,704.00 since January 1, 2010, and on €8,100.00 since November 1, 2010; as well as non-pecuniary damages, the amount of which is left to the discretion of the court…