FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany (No 3) [2005] FCA 1128
DR ULRICH CHRISTOPH EBERHARD FREIHERR VON ARNIM v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (Represented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions), THE COMMONWEALTH MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and GROUP 4 CORRECTION SERVICES PTY LTD
V 316 of 2001
FINKELSTEIN J
16 AUGUST 2005
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 316 of 2001
BETWEEN:
DR ULRICH CHRISTOPH EBERHARD FREIHERR VON ARNIM
ApplicantAND:
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (Represented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions),
THE COMMONWEALTH MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and
GROUP 4 CORRECTION SERVICES PTY LTD
RespondentsJUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the second and third respondents’ costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 316 of 2001
BETWEEN:
DR ULRICH CHRISTOPH EBERHARD FREIHERR VON ARNIM
ApplicantAND:
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (Represented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions),
THE COMMONWEALTH MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and
GROUP 4 CORRECTION SERVICES PTY LTD
RespondentsJUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:
16 AUGUST 2005
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I delivered reasons for judgment in this application on 3 June 2005. In view of the complexity of the case I made no final orders disposing of the application, but requested the applicant to inform me if there was a particular claim not specifically dealt with but which would not be decided against him in light of the findings I had made. In response, the applicant identified aspects of his submissions which had not been specifically discussed in my reasons, as well as cases upon which he had relied but to which I had made no reference. None of the submissions and none of the cases are of any continuing relevance having regard to the findings I have in fact made. There being no other issues that I need to decide, the appropriate order to make is to dismiss the application with costs.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finkelstein. Associate:
Dated: 16 August 2005
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B Monotti Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms K Moorhouse-Perks Counsel for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents: Mr B Walters SC
Mr L MaherSolicitor for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Applicant’s Further Submission: 8 June 2005 Date of Judgment: 16 August 2005
- AGLC
- von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany (No 3) [2005] FCA 1128
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the respondents were immune from jurisdiction under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). The court held that the respondents were entitled to immunity in relation to the applicant's claims for torture and ill-treatment under section 12 of the Act. The court found that the exceptions to immunity under section 13 of the Act did not apply to the applicant's claims. The court concluded that the respondents were immune from jurisdiction in relation to the applicant's claims, and the application was dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the second and third respondents’ costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the second and third respondents’ costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: FINKELSTEIN J
Full text does not contain this section.