Dalldorf v Director of Prosecutions
| Date | 31 Diciembre 1949 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 159 |
| Court | Obsolete Court (Germany) |
War — Termination of — Armistice — Unconditional Surrender — Subjugation.
Belligerent Occupation — In General — Rights and Duties of Occupant — In case of Unconditional Surrender — Unconditional Surrender of Germany — Debellatio — Whether Allied Powers Bound by Hague Regulations — Dismantling of German Installations — Taking of German Property by Allied Powers — Legality of — Military Government Ordinance No. 1.
The Facts.—By a notice in writing dated February 8, 1946, the firm of Blohm & Voss, of Hamburg, was informed by the British Military Government that certain of the firm's plant and equipment was henceforth under the control of Military Government and was therefore not to be interfered with. In disregard of that notice the appellant Dalldorf, in agreement with the other appellants, caused some of the plant and equipment concerned to be removed from the control of Military Government. The appellants were thereupon, inter alia and as far as is here material, convicted of an offence under Military Government Ordinance No. 1, Article I, section 32, which provides that “Destruction, concealment, unauthorised possession or disposition of, or interference with, any ship, installation, plant, equipment or other economic asset, or plans or records with respect thereto, required by the Military Government” is a punishable offence. On appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that in requiring the plant of the German firm of Blohm & Voss to be dismantled the British Military authorities were acting in contravention of the Hague Regulations, which remained applicable to the occupation of Germany either because on the date of Germany's surrender there was in existence a German Government, or, if there was not, because the Occupying Powers themselves had assumed an authority over Germany to which they were not entitled; that, accordingly, the notice issued by Military Government was unlawful; and that the appellants had been wrongly convicted.
Held: (i) that the Government set up in May 1945 by Doenitz, a former German Admiral, in order to negotiate the surrender of Germany, was not a government in the true sense; that, in any event, the participation of the United Kingdom in the assumption by the Allies of supreme power in Germany was an act of State which could not be questioned; and that accordingly the occupation of...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO AN