Can a state invoke sovereign immunity under international law in Norwegian property disputes?
Can a foreign state owning property in Norway invoke state immunity or diplomatic immunity to avoid lawsuits related to property disputes before Norwegian courts?
This question arose when the Oslo District Court considered a case involving two unit owners within a condominium, one unit being owned by the Republic of France/the French Embassy. The dispute concerned the legality of the embassy's annexation of the condominium's common areas. The Oslo District Court dismissed the lawsuit, citing diplomatic immunity. However, on February 26, 2025, Borgarting Court of Appeal unanimously overturned Oslo District Court's decision in case number 24-183854ASK-BORG/04, correctly concluding that the lawsuit cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the Republic of France has international legal immunity from the suit.
The Court of Appeal based its decision on Section 1-2 of the Norwegian Dispute Act, which states that the law applies "with the limitations recognized by international law." This provision determines who can be considered a "party" in a lawsuit. Particularly relevant to the international law assessment is the relationship between the rules on state immunity and diplomatic immunity. State immunity derives from the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property of December 2, 2004. This convention was ratified by Norway in 2006 but has not yet entered into force. Nevertheless, it is considered reflective of customary international law in the field.
Article 13(a) of the convention sets forth an exception to state immunity for "cases involving the determination of a state's rights or interests in immovable property situated in the territory of another state." Taken in isolation, this clearly indicates that a state cannot invoke immunity against lawsuits concerning property disputes. However, Article 3 (1)(a) provides:
| "This convention shall not affect the privileges and immunities of a state under international law regarding the functions exercised by its diplomatic missions, consular posts, special missions, delegations to international organizations or organs thereof, or delegations to international conferences." |
It was therefore natural to refer to Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, which emphasizes that "The premises of the mission shall be inviolable." Here, an apparent conflict emerges between the Convention on State Immunity and the Convention on Diplomatic Relations, suggesting that the Vienna Convention could limit the scope of the UN Convention, as indicated by Article 3 of the latter convention. However, the Court of Appeal rejected this interpretation, noting:
| "In the Court of Appeal's view, the District Court misunderstood and incorrectly applied customary international law on state immunity, including the distinction between acts performed in the exercise of sovereign authority and private legal transactions." |
Regarding Article 22, the Court of Appeal clarified:
| "Article 22 does [not explicitly]... prohibit civil proceedings against a state in a matter relating to embassy property. This contrasts with the personal immunity diplomats enjoy in civil actions regarding immovable property used for mission purposes under Article 31(1)(a). The absence of a corresponding immunity protection for the state in Article 22, or elsewhere in the Vienna Convention, supports the conclusion that the state does not possess diplomatic immunity in civil lawsuits concerning property used as diplomatic missions." |
The decisive point is thus that the Vienna Convention is intended to protect diplomats from lawsuits and enforcement—not the state itself. Consequently, the apparent limitation that Article 22 places upon Article 13 of the UN Convention, per Article 3, does not apply in this scenario. Therefore, the conclusion was that the Republic of France enjoys neither diplomatic nor state immunity concerning such private law disputes.
Want to know more?