Saar Territory (Prussian Officials) Case

Date17 Noviembre 1925
Docket NumberCase No. 37.
CourtObsolete Court (Germany)
Supreme Court in Saarlouis in the Saar Territory.
Case No. 37.
Case No. 68.
Saar Territory (Prussian Officials) Case.

Saar Territory — Legal Status of the Governing Commission — Relation to Germany — Suspension of Sovereignty and Suspension of Government — The Duty to take over Officials.

State Succession — The Duty to Take over Officials — Former Prussian Officials in the Saar Territory — Claim for Continued Payment of Pension — Right of Dismissal and Duty of Compensation.

Krause v. Mayoralty of Ucktelfangen (the same Court, 19 March, 1924) followed.

As to questions of State Succession, see Case No. 68.

The Facts.—The claimant was a civil servant in the municipality of N. in the Saar Territory.1 His engagement was for life. By a decree of the President of the Governing Commission of the Saar Territory of 2 December, 1920, he was relieved from his duties and placed at the disposal of the Prussian Government as from 15 December, 1920. On 1 October, 1921, the claimant was appointed to the Prussian Civil Service and the municipality thereupon stopped his salary. It was now claimed that the Governing Commission of the Saar Territory was under a duty to continue the payment of the salary as provided in the original contract. As the new appointment of the plaintiff was of a lower grade than that held by him in the Saar he claimed: (a) the continued payment for life of his salary less any salary he might in the future draw from any appointment as civil servant, (b) in case of incapacity to work the payment of the usual pension less the pension paid under other appointments, (c) in case of death, the payment of the usual allowance to his dependants less the allowance due under other appointments. (See also Case No. 37.)

Held: That the plaintiff failed. The Governing Commission could not be restricted in its choice of its officials by appointments made by the former Government. With the cessation of that Government, the legal basis of the appointment disappeared. There was, according to International Law, no general obligation upon the successor State to take over the officials of the former State, or to compensate them for the loss of their employment. The Court said: “The fact that writers on International Law express the opinion that the successor State is bound to respect acquired rights

is not decisive. For it is conceded even by those who put forward this view that the nature of the public law in question determines which rights have to be disregarded...

Um weiterzulesen

FORDERN SIE IHR PROBEABO AN

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT