Abstract:The jurisdictional immunity of a state means that the state cannot be involved as a defendant in a case considered by a foreign court. In Ukraine, the rule on the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state is enshrined in Art. 79 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Private International Law’. Until 14 April 2022, the Ukrainian Supreme Court rigidly applied the provisions of the said article and recognised the Russian Federation’s immunity with regard to claims brought by Ukrainian citizens seeking compensation for harm caused by the armed conflict that commenced in 2014. Yet shortly after 24 February 2022, when Russia’s aggression against Ukraine entered a new phase, i.e., the phase of full-scale war, the Supreme Court changed its mind. This note addresses the ruling of the Ukrainian Supreme Court of 14 April 2022 in case no. 308/9708/19, where the Court held that the Russian Federation could not plead immunity with regard to tort claims brought by the victims of the Russia-Ukraine war. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the territorial tort exception enshrined in the European Convention on State Immunity (Basel, 16 May 1972) and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. Though neither of the two conventions has been ratified by either Ukraine or the Russian Federation, the Court found that these conventions indicate a general tendency in international customary law towards limiting the jurisdictional immunity of the states. The reasoning of the Supreme Court is examined by scrutinising the authorities the Court adduced in support of its ruling, as well as by putting the ruling in the broader context of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It is concluded that what the Supreme Court utilised is not the territorial tort exception but rather the ‘human rights/jus cogens’ exception. Further, the case before the Ukrainian Supreme Court is distinguishable from the ICJ and the ECtHR cases, where it was held that notwithstanding gross violations of human rights, the respondent state should nevertheless enjoy immunity. Unlike those cases, the Ukrainian case was tried amid the ongoing war, when no reparation agreements had been concluded, the legitimate aim of ‘promoting comity and good relations between states’ had been frustrated, and it was no longer possible to justify the restriction of the plaintiff’s right of access to a fair trial.

Italy and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on Third States’ Tort Liability for Sponsoring Terrorism

Italy’s Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Amendments: Unresolved Issues

Medically assisted suicide in Italy: the recent judgment of the Constitutional Court

Italy’s New Migration Control Policy: Stemming the Flow of Migrants From Libya Without Regard for Their Human Rights

The Italian Judiciary between Constitution and European Law: Autonomy, Independence, Impartiality and Protection of Rights

Liability of Health Care Professionals and Institutions During COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: Symposium Proceedings and Position Statement

Physician-Patient Relationship, Assisted Suicide and the Italian Constitutional Court

Aiding and Abetting Suicide: The Current Debate in Italy

Conflict and crime. Restorative justice in Italy

Negazionismo e libertà di espressione: dalla sentenza Perinçek c. Svizzera alla nuova aggravante prevista nell'ordinamento Italiano. (Genocide Denial and Freedom of Expression: from the Perincek v. Switzerland Judgement to the New Aggravating Circumstance Introduced in Italian Criminal Law)

The Physician-Assisted Suicide Pathway in Italy: Ethical Assessment and Safeguard Approaches

The Legal Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Italy

Struggle in Favour of a Criminal Law as an ‘ultima ratio’. Critical Observations on the Criminalisation Obligations Arising from the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Light of the Principle of Subsidiarity

Recent Developments in Italian Constitutional-Criminal Law

Keep silence for yourself: The protection of the right to silence in the Italian criminal justice system

Territorial Tort Exception? The Ukrainian Supreme Court Held that the Russian Federation Could Not Plead Immunity with regard to Tort Claims Brought by the Victims of the Russia-Ukraine War

Effective Assistance of Counsel: The Influence of the ECtHR Case Law on Italian Criminal Procedure

Prison Conditions and Judicial Cooperation in the EU – What Future for the European Arrest Warrant?

"The Legal Basis for the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and the Preparatory Work of the Rome Statute (V)," Journal of International Relations and Comparative Culture, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March 2020), pp. 37-48.

An Analysis of the Content of Article 12 of the Rome Statute and the Relationship Between Article 12 and Article 98

The Influence of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the Italian System of Protection of the Right to Information in Criminal Procedures