![]() This decision was apparently rejected in Lurie v. ![]() The court at Rome maintained that it was not necessary for acts done outside the public functions of a diplomat to be protected by the principle of immunity. The United States informed the Italian Government that an Italian diplomatic official would be exempt in such a matter in the United States, but did not insist that Kite claim exemption. Under the Convention (incorporated into domestic law by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964), diplomats enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings, and immunity from civil proceedings subject to only. 202, involving a suit for release of an apartment against an employee of the American Embassy in Rome. The court reasoned: that in matters of historical local concern the Federal treaty power was constitutionally limited that a suit for recovery of realty was such a matter of local concern that real property of a diplomat, “not pertaining to his diplomatic status, is subject to local laws” and that the court’s jurisdiction was “basically in rem, and not in personam.” This case may be compared with Comina v. This 1790 law remained in force until 1978, when the present Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. ![]() ![]() 201 (1951), a New York court asserted jurisdiction in a suit to recover realty against the Third Secretary of the Permanent Delegation of Argentina to the United Nations, notwithstanding that the secretary was, according to the Headquarters Agreement, entitled to the “same privileges and immunities, subject to corresponding conditions and obligations,” as diplomatic envoys accredited to the United States. In 1790, the United States passed similar legislation that provided absolute immunity for diplomats and their families and servants, as well as for lower ranking diplomatic mission personnel. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |