ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Entity wholly owned by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation – Plea of illegality – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection
Pelikanova P
T-492/10, [2013] EUECJ T-492/10
Bailii
European

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.471151

Whether activities outsourced by a state retained immunity under the 1978 Act.
Males J
[2016] EWHC 1761 (Comm)
Bailii
State Immunity Act 1978
England and Wales

Updated: 24 July 2021; Ref: scu.567266

References: Unreported, 15 July 1997
Coram: Clarke J
Ratio: Admiralty practice – arrest of vessel – State immunity
This case cites:

• Appealed to – Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Guiseppe Di Vittorio Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Guiseppe Di Vittorio CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2328)
  . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Appeal from – Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Guiseppe Di Vittorio Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Guiseppe Di Vittorio CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2328)
  . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 10-Jan-17
Ref: 220785

References: (1972) 406 US 759, [1972] USSC 189, [1972] 92 SCt 1808
Links: Worldlii
(United States Supreme Court) The court worried about just how much confusion can result from executive encroachment on issues of justiciability and that executive interference would lead to arbitrary results as ‘the Court becomes a mere errand boy for the Executive Branch which may choose to pick some people’s chestnuts from the fire, but not others” (Douglas J). ‘I would be uncomfortable with a doctrine which would require the judiciary to receive the Executive’s permission before invoking its jurisdiction . Such a notion, in the name of the doctrine of separation of powers, seems to me to conflict with that very doctrine.’ (Powell J)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Korea National Insurance Company -v- Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty Ag ComC (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 2829 (Comm))
  The claimant sought to enforce a judgment for payment of a sum under a policy of insurance. The defendant sought to refuse saying that the policy had been instigated by a fraud perpetrated by the state of North Korea, and or that the judicial system . .

References: [1979] USSC 27
Links: Worldlii
Coram: Marshall J
Ratio United States Supreme Court – Under the Illinois Election Code, new political parties and independent candidates must obtain the signatures of 25,000 qualified voters in order to appear on the ballot in statewide elections. However, the minimum number of signatures required in elections for offices of political subdivisions of the State is 5% of the number of persons who voted at the previous election for such offices. Application of these provisions to a special mayoral election in Chicago produced the result that a new party or independent candidate needed substantially more signatures than would be needed for ballot access in a statewide election. In actions by appellees, an independent candidate, two new political parties, and certain voters challenging this discrepancy on equal protection grounds, the District Court enjoined enforcement of the 5% provision insofar as it mandated more than 25,000 signatures, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: 1. This Court’s summary affirmance in Jackson v. Ogilvie, 403 U.S. 925, 91 S.Ct. 2247, 29 L.Ed.2d 705, of the District Court’s decision in 325 F.Supp. 864, upholding Illinois’ 5% signature requirement is not dispositive of the equal protection question presented here. The precedential effect of a summary affirmance can extend no further than ‘the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions,’ Mandel v. Bradley, [1977] USSC 112; 432 U.S. 173, 176[1977] USSC 112; , 97 S.Ct. 2238, 2240[1977] USSC 112; , 53 L.Ed.2d 199. In contrast to this case, the challenge in Jackson involved only the discrepancy between the 5% requirement and the less stringent requirements for candidates of established political parties. The issue presented here was not referred to by the Jackson District Court, and was mentioned only in passing in the jurisdictional statement subsequently filed with this Court. Thus, the issue was not adequately presented to, or decided by, this Court in its summary affirmance.
2. The Illinois Election Code, insofar as it requires independent candidates and new political parties to obtain more than 25,000 signatures in Chicago violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 183-187. (a) When such fundamental rights as the freedom to associate as a political party and the right to cast votes effectively are at stake, a State must establish that its regulation of ballot access is necessary to serve a compelling interest.
(b) ‘[E]ven when pursuing a legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty,’ Kusper v. Pontikes, [1973] USSC 235; 414 U.S. 51, 59[1973] USSC 235; , 94 S.Ct. 303, 308[1973] USSC 235; , 38 L.Ed.2d 260, and States must adopt the least drastic means to achieve their ends. This requirement is particularly important where restrictions on access to the ballot are involved. Since the State has determined that a smaller number of signatures in a larger political unit adequately serves its interest in regulating the number of candidates on the ballot, the signature requirements for independent candidates and political parties seeking offices in Chicago are clearly not the least restrictive means of achieving the same objective. Appellant State Board of Elections has advanced no reason, much less a compelling one, why the State needs a more stringent requirement for elections in Chicago than for statewide elections.
(c) Prior invalidation of Illinois’ rules regarding geographic distribution of signatures tied the requirements for both city and state candidates solely to a population standard. However, while this may explain the anomaly at issue here, it does not justify it. Historical accident, without more, cannot constitute a compelling state interest.
3. The Court of Appeals properly dismissed as moot appellant’s claim that the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners lacked authority to conclude a settlement agreement with respect to the unresolved issue whether the 5% signature requirement coupled with the filing deadline impermissibly burdened First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Appellant has presented no evidence creating a reasonable expectation that the Chicago Board will repeat its purportedly unauthorized actions in subsequent elections.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Bank Mellat -v- Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC (Bailii Summary, WLRD, Bailii, [2013] UKSC 39, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 580, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] HRLR 30, [2013] 4 All ER 533, [2013] WLR(D) 244, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0040, SC Sumary, SC)
  The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 16-May-16
Ref: 535120

References: [1849] EngR 834, (1849) 4 Exch 290, (1849) 154 ER 1221
Links: Commonlii
Answer to an action on a judgment obtained in France.

References: (1897) 168 US 250, [1897] USSC 197, 18 SCt 83, 42 L.Ed. 456
Links: Worldlii
Coram: Fuller CJ
(US Supreme Court) Fuller CJ said: ‘Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.’
This case cites:

• Applied – Duke of Brunswick -v- The King of Hanover HL ((1848) 2 HL Cas 1, (1844) 6 Beav 1, [1848] EngR 794, Commonlii, (1848) 2 HLC 1, (1848) 9 ER 993)
  The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
  Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .

This case is cited by:

• Cited – Regina -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte British Council of Turkish Cypriot Associations and Another Admn (Bailii, [1998] EWHC Admin 341, 112 ILR 735)
  The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to support the application for admission to the Eurorpean Community of Cyprus.
  Held: Leave was refused: ‘the independence of Cyprus since 17th August 1960 forecloses any power . .
• Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others -v- Ainsworth and Another SC ([2011] 3 WLR 487, [2011] FSR 41, [2011] Bus LR 1211, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 39, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, UKSC 2010/0015, [2011] 4 All ER 817, [2011] FSR 41, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1011, [2012] 1 AC 208, [2012] EMLR 3,, [2011] ECDR 21)
  The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
• Cited – Buttes Gas and Oil Co -v- Hammer (No 3) HL ([1982] AC 888, [1981] 3 All ER 616, [1981] 3 WLR 787)
  In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .
• Cited – Shergill and Others -v- Khaira and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 33, [2014] 3 WLR 1, [2014] WLR(D) 263, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0234, SC Summary, SC, [2014] PTSR 907, [2014] WTLR 1729, [2014] 3 All ER 243)
  The parties disputed the trusts upon which three Gurdwaras (Sikh Temples) were held. The Court of Appeal had held that the issues underlying the dispute were to be found in matters of the faith of the Sikh parties, and had ordered a permanent stay. . .

References: (1924) PCIJ Rep Series A, No. 2
(Permanent International Court of Justice) ‘It is an elementary principle of international law that a State is entitled to protect its subjects, when injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another State, from whom they have been unable to obtain satisfaction through the ordinary channels. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights – its right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law.
The question, therefore, whether the present dispute originates in an injury to a private interest, which in point of fact is the case in many international disputes, is irrelevant from this standpoint. Once a State has taken up a case on behalf of one of its subjects before an international tribunal, in the eyes of the latter the State is sole claimant.’
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Occidental Exploration & Production Company -v-Republic of Ecuador CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1116, Times 23-Sep-05, [2006] 2 WLR 70, [2006] QB 432)
  The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to . .

References: [1939] AC 256
Coram: Lord Atkin
The House considered the weight to be given to a certificate as to a statement by HM government as to the recognition of the defendant as a sovereign state: ‘Our State cannot speak with two voices on such a matter, the judiciary saying one thing, the executive another. Our Sovereign has to decide whom he will recognize as a fellow sovereign in the family of States; and the relations of the foreign State with ours in the matter of State Immunities must flow from that decision alone.’
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Alamieyeseigha, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Crown Prosecution Service Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2704 (Admin), Times 16-Jan-06)
  The defendant argued that as Governor and Chief Excecutive of Bayelsa State in Nigeria he had sovereign immunity. The Foreign Office had issued a certificate that the defendant was not a Head of States under the 1978 Act. The A-G of Bayelsa had . .