Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Diplomatic Immunity

  • 30-11-2014 7:37pm
    #1
    mdebets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭


    Just have read this article about the UAE ambassador (now former) who payed his domestic workers way below the minimum wage.
    The article said that the Employment Appeals Tribunal awarded €80,000 against him. Could someone please explain to me, how a case in front of the Employment Appeals Tribunal got as far, despite the diplomatic immunity of the ambassador?


Comments

  • #2
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    I reckon the quick answer based on the article is that award should be paid by the ambassador's Government as a gesture of goodwill but this would be a voluntary act.

    Dixon's "International law" states that this immunity is enjoyed by the official representatives of foreign states. In some cases this is absolute. But in others, as far as I can make out, it can be restrictive depending on the agreement between the states there can be occasions where the two states can agree to some partial liability for minor civil matters if the Ambassador was acting as a private individual.


  • #3
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Seems that the old position was set out in Government of Canada v EAT (1991), where the Supreme Court found that a restricted form of sovereign immunity still applied. The employee was unsuccessful in his action.

    However, see Ahmed Mahamdia v Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Algeria Case C-154/11, where it now appears that unless the functions carried out by the employee fall within the exercise of public powers, the State in question will be subject to the jurisdiction of the domestic courts.

    Housekeeping isn't an exercise of public powers.


Advertisement