## Facts

- During World War II, organs of the German Reich committed atrocities in Italy and Greece, including massacres (notably Distomo) and deportations for forced labor.
- Italian nationals brought civil actions in Italian courts seeking damages from Germany for these wartime acts committed on Italian territory.
- Italian authorities adopted enforcement-related measures against German-owned property in Italy, including registering a charge against Villa Vigoni, used for governmental, non-commercial purposes.
- Greek courts issued civil judgments against Germany arising from the Distomo massacre; Italian courts later declared those Greek judgments enforceable in Italy.
- Germany instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2008, alleging Italy failed to respect Germany’s jurisdictional immunity under customary international law, invoking the 1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes as the basis for ICJ jurisdiction.
- Italy submitted a counter-claim seeking adjudication of reparations owed to Italian victims; the ICJ rejected the counter-claim as inadmissible under the temporal limits tied to the jurisdictional basis.
- Greece was permitted to intervene to address interests implicated by the Distomo judgments and their treatment in Italy.

## Issues

1. Whether customary international law required Italy to accord Germany jurisdictional immunity in civil proceedings concerning WWII acts by German armed forces and other state organs.
2. Whether a “territorial tort” exception permitted Italy to exercise jurisdiction over Germany for personal injury and death occurring in Italy during armed conflict.
3. Whether alleged violations of jus cogens norms (war crimes and crimes against humanity) remove a foreign state’s entitlement to immunity before domestic civil courts.
4. Whether the absence of effective alternative remedies for victims can justify denying state immunity (“last resort” argument).
5. Whether Italy violated immunity by imposing measures of constraint against Germany’s property in Italy (Villa Vigoni).
6. Whether Italy violated immunity by recognizing and enforcing Greek judgments against Germany in Italy.

## Decision

- The ICJ held that Italy breached Germany’s jurisdictional immunity by allowing civil claims against Germany based on WWII acts of German armed forces and other organs.
- The ICJ held that Italy breached Germany’s immunity from enforcement by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni, as German state property used for governmental, non-commercial purposes.
- The ICJ held that Italy breached Germany’s immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy Greek judgments (including Distomo-related judgments) against Germany.
- The ICJ ordered Italy, by means of its own choosing, to ensure that Italian judicial decisions and enforcement measures infringing Germany’s immunity cease to have effect and that Germany’s immunities are respected going forward.
- The ICJ emphasized it was deciding a procedural question of immunity, not adjudicating Germany’s substantive responsibility or ordering reparations for WWII atrocities.

## Legal Principles

- Under customary international law, a state is generally immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts for sovereign acts (acta jure imperii); this rule is grounded in the sovereign equality of states and is procedural.
- State immunity does not depend on the legality of the underlying conduct; it bars adjudication in foreign courts even where serious wrongdoing is alleged.
- A territorial tort exception is not established in customary international law for acts of armed forces and other state organs committed in the course of armed conflict on the forum state’s territory.
- There is no recognized conflict between jus cogens substantive prohibitions and the procedural rule of jurisdictional immunity; the peremptory character of the violated norm does not, by itself, remove immunity.
- The unavailability of other effective avenues for redress does not create an exception to a well-established customary rule of state immunity.
- Immunity protects qualifying state property from measures of constraint; property used for governmental, non-commercial purposes is immune from enforcement measures.
- A forum state may not circumvent another state’s immunity by recognizing and enforcing a third state’s judgment that, if litigated or enforced in the forum, would contravene the immunity rule.

## Conclusion

The ICJ concluded that customary international law required Italy to respect Germany’s jurisdictional immunity for WWII-era sovereign acts, including by barring Italian civil jurisdiction, preventing enforcement measures against protected German property, and refusing to enforce Greek judgments against Germany; Italy was required to nullify the effects of domestic decisions and measures inconsistent with that immunity.


Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.; Greece intervening), Judgment (Feb. 3, 2012), 2012 I.C.J. 99