Le sort des biens diplomatiques

Résumé Fr En

Cible privilégiée des créanciers privés dans leurs tentatives d’exécuter par voie de contrainte un titre exécutoire contre un État étranger, les biens diplomatiques continuent toutefois de bénéficier d’une protection particulière. La Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques de 1961, appuyée par le droit international coutumier, garantit une solide immunité tant aux locaux de la mission qu’aux comptes bancaires lui appartenant. Au surplus, il n’est pas question d’assouplir globalement cette institution si essentielle pour les relations internationales. Si des stratégies se dessinent pour affaiblir cette immunité d’exécution, ces dernières souffrent d’une absence d’organisation et n’ont pour l’instant pas emporté suffisamment la conviction des acteurs du droit international pour envisager une remise en question durable de cette immunité au bénéfice des personnes privées lésées dans leur accès à la justice.

Creditors of States and state entities often seek to execute their judgments or arbitral awards on diplomatic property. Not only they are more noticeable than other state property abroad but they exist in large number considering the critical importance of diplomatic and consular networks in the current world. Yet, Creditors often face serious hardships to seize them in practice. Diplomatic property, premises of the mission or bank accounts, benefit from immunity from execution under international public law. No measures of constraint can be taken against them because of their involvement in the exercise of diplomatic activities. This immunity stems from two sources: the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and customary international law. There is a trend within domestic courts to interpret this protection in favour of the sending State. Diplomatic inviolability applies to a large number of buildings not only to embassy official offices. Diplomatic bank accounts are presumed to be used to perform diplomatic activities and in some instances immunity can cover mixed bank accounts. While the risk of abuse is great, creditor’s access to justice remain deeply constrained. With regard to diplomatic inviolability of the premises of the mission, unless their designation as such is the object of an upstream control by the local authorities, they remain protected beyond doubt. Concerning diplomatic bank accounts, if their seizure would be facilitated by a reversal of the burden of proof, it is not yet a path domestic courts are willing to take even though it amounts in practice in certain circumstances to a true infringement to the right of fair trial of creditors.