Rationa v German Federal Republic
| Court | Obsolete Court (Germany) |
| Date | 26 Enero 1960 |
(Wickstrm, President; Euler, Bennett.)
Treaties of peace Performance of Analogous instruments Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and Occupation, 19521954 Claim in form of restitution claim but in fact a compensation claim Exclusion of, under Convention.
The Facts (as stated by the Commission).By decision of November 30, 1956, the Bundesamt fr die Prfung auslndischer Rckgabe- und Wiederherstellungsansprche [Federal Office for Examination of Foreign Restitution Claims] rejected the claim filed by the complainant company [Rationa GmbH. fr Industrieund Httenbedarf, Bad Godesberg-Friesdorf], the whole capital of which is owned by British nationals.
On December 13, 1956, the decision was served upon the complainant which on December 20, 1956, lodged with the Commission an appeal against this decision.
At the complainant's request, the Commission decided, by Order of July n, 1957, to suspend the proceedings until further notice or until a final judgment had been rendered in the case [of] Heidsieck & Co. (No. 238).[1]
After the proceedings had been resumed at the complainant's request, the Commission heard the parties at the oral hearing which took place on January 15, 1960.
Before the Bundesamt, the complainant contended as follows:
At the beginning of 1940, the property of the complainant had been placed under trusteeship in application of the German Ordinance on the Treatment of Enemy Properties of January 15, 1940. A person other than an employee of the company was appointed administrator although it would have been possible to choose someone from among the employees of the firm. The administrator had received as remuneration a total amount of 22,000 RM. The administrator, obeying the instructions of the Reich Commissioner, had invested almost all the liquid capital of the company, 93,000 RM, in Reich Treasury Bonds which subsequently almost completely lost their value. These measures constituted discriminatory treatment within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of Chapter Ten of the Settlement Convention.[2] The complainant therefore claimed
restitution of the sum of 22,000 RM converted into 22,000 DM and full revalorization of the sum of 93,000 RMBefore the Commission, the complainant maintained its claim in respect of the amount of 22,000 DM. It declared that the sum invested in Treasury Bonds...
Um weiterzulesen
FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO AN