Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:58:39.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tietz et al. v. People's Republic of Bulgaria.

German Federal Republic.  10 July 1959 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Succession of Governments — In general — Succession with regard to contractual obligations — Waiver of diplomatic immunity in contract for purchase of premises to be used as legation — Whether binding on successor Government — Contract made by Kingdom of Bulgaria — Whether binding on Government of People's Republic of Bulgaria.

Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Foreign States — Waiver of immunity — Express waiver in contract of purchase of land and premises — Submission to jurisdiction of local courts — Effect and scope of such clause.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Exemptions from — Property of foreign States — Real property — Whether subject to jurisdiction of local State — Distinction between imperium and dominium — Relevance of use of premises for diplomatic purposes — The law of Germany.

Diplomatic and consular intercourse — Miscellaneous — Diplomatic premises — Immunity of — Relevance of number and location of embassy buildings — Relevance of distance of premises from capital.

Permanent diplomatic envoys — Privileges and immunities of — Diplomatic premises — Immunity from jurisdiction — Theory of imperium of local sovereign — Principle of exterritoriality — Extent of validity in contemporary international law — Extent to which immunity derived from person of envoy — Theory of functional necessity — Relevance of distance of diplomatic premises from capital — Effect of termination of diplomatic use of premises — Relevance of involuntary nature of termination — Distinction between temporary cessation of use through suspension of diplomatic relations and permanent termination of use — Immunity of premises from jurisdiction of special courts — Restitution courts — Nature of restitution proceedings — Relevance of fact that restitution claims are claims in rem — Competence of restitution court to determine ancillary claims in personam.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)