De Haan v German Federal Republic
| Date | 11 Agosto 1958 |
| Court | Obsolete Court (Germany) |
(Lagergren, Vice-President; Arndt, Phenix.)
Peace treaties — Performance of — Restitution provisions — Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and Occupation, 1952–1954 — Claims for compensation — Distinguished from claims for restitution.
Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Limitation of — Arbitral Commission on Property, Rights and Interests in Germany — Effect of Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising Out of the War and Occupation, 1952–1954 — Chapter Ten, Article 12, paragraph 1 (a) — Claims against German Federal Republic — Distinction between claims for restitution and claims for compensation — Absence of jurisdiction over latter.
The Facts (as stated by the Commission).—“This is an appeal under Article 12, paragraph 1 (a), of Chapter Ten of the Bonn Settlement Convention against a decision of the Bundesamt für die Prüfung ausländischer Rückgabe- und Wiederherstellungsansprüche [Federal Restitution Office] dated September 12, 1957, which denied appellant's request for compensation for four cases of skin cream allegedly confiscated by German authorities between the beginning of 1943 and May 8, 1945.
“Before the Commission, the appellant maintains his earlier arguments and submissions with a view to obtaining compensation from the Federal Republic of Germany, but he also submits a request to the effect that the liquidator of the Rohstoff-Gesellschaft m.b.H. [hereinafter referred to as “Roges”], which company had apparently disposed of the goods, be adjudged to pay to the appellant the equivalent value of the goods, that is, 1,387.20 Dutch Florins plus interest from 1943. The appellant further presents three documents in support of his claim, the first being a receipt from Roges (Enclosure B of the appellant's pleading of November 9, 1957), the second being a letter of February 22, 1957, from the Industriebeteiligungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (the liquidator of Roges) to the appellant (Enclosure E of the same pleading), and the third being a letter of February 27, 1957, from the same sender to the Bundesamt (page 12 in the files of the Bundesamt).”
Held: that the appeal must be dismissed. An appellant under Article 12, [paragraph] 1 (a), of Chapter Ten of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and Occupation could not ask...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO AN