Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

access to the court is more important than the claim to immunity. Thus, the CAVVwrites in Article 4.5.2 of its Report that the national court:‘(…) should proceed to a prima facie investigation in the light of international legalnorms of the availibility of adequate internal legal remedies that are available withinan international organisation to the aggrieved party. In the event of a negative result itis desirable that national courts do not accord immunity and proceed to settlement ofthe dispute at hand.’462. It is meanwhile accepted that the immunity of international organisations, like the UN, is(no longer) self-evident (see, A. Reinisch, in R. Hofmann et al., Die Rechtskontrolle vonOrganen der Staatengemeinschaft, 2007, page 43). There are increasing numbers ofnational courts that do not recognise the immunity of these organisations, in order toguarantee an effective protection of legal rights.463. In the proceedings between Manderlier and the UN, Manderlier invoked, inter alia,Article 6 EECHR and Article 10 UDHR. It was held in that dispute that the UDHR didnot have the force of a statute (see, 45 ILR, page 451). The Tribunal in Brussel heldfurther that only fourteen countries were Contracting Parties of the EECHR and that theEECHR could not be enforced against the UN (see, 45 ILR, page 452). To the extentthat the numbers argument in 1966 was valid, that is at present certainly not the casegiven that now 46 countries have acceded to the EECHR. The second argument, that theEECHR does not apply to the UN, is also incorrect. The EECHR confers on civilians adirect right of access to the court, which means that the court before which a claim isbrought must allow access. By so doing it is not imposing the EECHR on the the UN,but rather offering protection to the acknowledged – also by the UN – human right ofaccess to the court.464. In respect of the failure to establish access to the court, the Tribunal in Brussels in theManderlier Case held that (see, 45 ILR, page 451):© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com192