© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten

very dissimilar to each other, there is no hierarchical relationship; the one type does notextend “further”, in general terms, and is not more “important” than the other. Decisivefor the establishment of meaning of norms of immunity of international institutions is whatthe parties to the treaty agreed in the founding treaty in question, and having due regardto articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties. With regard to the UN it is truethat it is indisputably the most important international institution in the internationalcommunity, with an almost universal membership among states.’And erroneously considered under legal consideration 5.12 that:‘The allegations on which the Association et al. have based their actions against the UNrelate to acts (and omissions) in the implementation of the peace-keeping mission inquestion, which is based on resolutions by the UN Security Council by virtue of theaforesaid Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The allegedly culpable conduct of the UN fallwithin the functional scope of this organization. It is particularly for acts within thisframework that immunity from legal process is intended.’And further erroneously considered under legal consideration 5.13 that:‘The startingpoint is that the UN itself, according to its letter to its letter to the DutchPermanent Representative to the UN, referred to in 1.1. and dated 17 August 2007,expressly invokes its immunity. As far as the Court is aware the UN to date has alwaysinvoked its immunity with regard to actions within the functional framework just referredto, and no exceptions have ever been made in practice. The Association et al. have notadvanced anything from which the opposite can follow. On the basis of all of this theDistrict Court concludes that in international-law practice the absolute immunity of the UNis the norm and is respected.’Explanation to ground of appeal 7Introduction60. Ground of appeal 7 relates to the immunity of the UN. The Association et al. notes thefollowing by way of introduction. In this case there is no question of state immunity, ratherof immunity of an international organisation. That immunity is not absolute and is limited by© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten page 25 of 99