Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Germany filed complaint against Italy - ICJ

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In its current action, Germany alleges that Italian domestic courts have considered a considerable number of new claims against Germany in violation of Germany's sovereign immunity, despite a 2012 ICJ judgement granting the country legal immunity.

In a long-running dispute over World War II reparations, Germany has filed a complaint against Italy at the United Nations' highest court.

Friday evening, the International Court of Justice revealed the filing.

The German case refers to a 2012 judgement by the UN court that confirmed Germany's immunity from being sued by victims of Nazi atrocities in foreign courts.

In 2008, the Italian supreme court ruled that an Italian civilian was entitled to reparations for his deportation to Germany in 1944 to labour as a slave.

In its current complaint, Germany contends that Italian domestic courts have heard a substantial number of new claims against Germany in violation of its sovereign immunity since 2012.

In the case it won in 2012, Berlin contended that the Italian supreme court's verdict cast doubt on a post-Nazi restitution system that has seen Germany pay tens of billions of dollars in reparations since the 1950s.

Italy has breached and continues to violate its commitment to respect Germany's sovereign immunity by permitting civil claims to be launched against Germany in connection with Nazi war crimes and by intending to sell off four German-owned properties in Rome.

The case also seeks urgent directives from the court, known as temporary measures, including an order to ensure that the German properties "are not subjected to a public auction" or "additional measures of constraint" until the court reaches its ultimate ruling, which will likely take years.

Hearing dates were not immediately established. International Court of Justice decisions are final and legally binding.

D.D :- 10 May 2022

GERMANY Vs ITALY

Latest Legal News