1 54For the related point of U.S. enforcement of U.S. orders see above at 6 in Civil or Commercial Mattersopened for signature Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555et seq. (entered into force between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany on June 26, 1979) [hereinafter cited as Hague Evidence Convention).

2 See Hague Evidence Convention, arts. 1-14, 23 U.S.T. 2557-2564 (describing the procedures for utilizing a letter of request).

3 Messersdimill also sought review of a district coun order permitting deposition of Messerschmitt's expert witnesses (see 85-99 Pet. App. 2a). Messerschmitt indicates thai that issue has since become moot (85-99 Pet. 4 n.4).

4 See S. Exec. A, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. VI (1972); S. Exec. Rep. 92-25, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1972);Report of United Slates Delegation to Eleventh Session of Hague Conference on Private International Law; 8 Int'l Legal Materials 785, 806 (1969).

5 See,e.g., Langbein,The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, 52 U.Chi.L.Rev. 823 (1985); Shemanski,Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Impact of the Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial Cooperation, 17 Int'l Law. 465, 466-469 (1983); Edwards,Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 18 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 646, 647 (1969). See generally Kaplan, von Mehren i Schaefer,Phases of German Civil Procedure (pis. 1& 2), 71 Harv. L. Rev. 1193, 1443 (1958)

6 See Edwards,supra, 18 Im'l & Comp. L.Q. at 618; Report of United Slates Delegation to Eleventh Session of Hague Conference on Private International Law. supra. 8 Im'l Legal Materials at 806.

7 In particular, a party to the Evidence Convention is expressly permitted to reserve the riylu 1101 to allow the taking of evidence beforew diplomat orcon-sular officer, or before a commissioner. See arts. 33, 35, 23 U.S.T. 2571,2572. Germany has made such a reservation. However, pursuant to an exchange of diplomatic notes between the United Slates and Germany, non-compulsory depositions may be conducted before United States consular officials. See Brief for the United Slates as Amicus Curiae at 7-9,volkswagenwerk A.G. v.Falzon. appeal dismissed, 465 U.S.1014 (1984).

8 Congress shared thai understanding, even in the case of the Tax Court. For example, since 1954, the Internal Revenue Code has expressly authorized the Tax Court lo order foreign corporations thai petition forrefunds to produce documents, “wherever” located, that the Tax Court “may deem relevant to the proceedings and which are in the possession, custody or control of the petitioner, or of any person directly or indirectly under his control or having control over him or subject to the same common control.” 26 U.S.C. 7456(b).

9 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in CiVil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 el seq. (entered into force for the United States on Feb.10,1969).

10 See S. Exec. A,supra; S. Exec. Rep. 92-25,supra; Report of United Stales Delegation to Eleventh Session of Hague Conference on Private International Law; supra, 8 Int'l Legal Materials at 804-820. See also Oxman,The Choice Between Direct Discovery and Other Meuns of Obtaining Evidence Abroad: The Impact of the Hague Evidence Convention, 37 U. Miami L. Rev. 733, 760 (1983) (“The author knows of no evidence that the American negotiators, the Department of Slate, or the Congress intended to prohibit this practice entirely.“

11 Petitioners suggest ihat “it is difficult to see why countries such as Germany agreed to compel their citizens to provide evidence to United States courts if it was not in exchange for some limitations on the methods or scope of United Stales discovery from abroad.” 85-98 Pet. 16 (footnote omitted); 85-99 Pet. 14-15 (footnote omitted). It is true that the United States had already provided foreign countries with broad evidence gathering opportunities prior to the Convention's entry into force. See 28 U.S.C. 1781-1782. However, Germany has received additional tangible benefits from the Convention despite its non-exclusive operation. First, the Convention pro\ides an evidence gathering procedure that American courts may use in appropriate cases to prevent international friction. The availability of this optional method reduces the likelihood that United Slates courts will need to issue discovery requests thai Germany might find objectionable. In addition, Germany enjoys ihe benefits of'participation in a multilateral convention that presumably enhances its evidence gathering opportunities in countries other than the United States.

12 Petitioners suggest that American courts can cure this problem by “excluding evidence when the opposing party cannot lest its probative value through examination of underlv ing and related evidence located abroad” or by drawing adverse inferences from a parly's failure to produce voluntarily evidence located abroad” (85-98 Pet. 17; 85-99 Pet. 15). However, these remedies are of little help to a plaintiff who needs evidence from abroad to develop and establish his case in chief.

13 See Oxman,supra. 37 U. Miami L. Rev. at 760 (“Absent an express provision in the treaty that a longstanding practice valued by ut least some members of the American bar was being abolished it is unreasonable to conclude that the convention implies such a prohibition.“).

14 See,e.g., Laker Airways, Ltd. v.Sabena, Belgian World Airlines. 731 F.2d 909, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1984);United States v.First Satioiuil Bank. 699 F.2d 341, 345-347 (7th Cir. 1983);United Slates v.Vetco, Inc., 691 F.:d 1281, 1288-1291 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1098 (1981);United Stales v.First National City Bank, 396 F.2d al 901-905. Cf.Societe Internationale \. Rogers. 357 U.S. 197 (1958).

15 The Convention is operative in Barbados, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Den mark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, Luxem bourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

16 See,e.g.. Lowrunce v.H'einig, 107 F.R.D. 386, 388-389 (W.D. Tenn. 1985);Work v.Bier, 106 F.R.D. 45, 52-53 (D.D.C. 1985);Sluuenwhite v.Bekiwi Maschinen/ubriken. GmbH. 104 F.R.D. 616, 618-619 (D. Mass. 1985);Compugnie Fruncaise D'Assurance v.Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 27-28 (S.D.N.Y. 1984);Laker Airways. Ltd. v.Pun American World Airways, 103 F.R.D. 42, 48-50 (D.D.C. 1984);Cooper Industries, Inc. v.British Aerospace. Inc., 102 F.R.D. 918, 919-920 (S.D.N.Y. 1984);Craco, Inc. v.Kremlin, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503, 519-524 (N.D. 111. 1984);Marburg GmbH i Co. AC v.Superior Court, 137 Cai. App. 3d 238;243-244, 186 Cal. Rpir. 876, 879-880 (1982);Gebr. EickhofJ Muschinenfabrik Uiul Liwugivberei mbH v.Sturdier, 328 S.E.2d 492, 497 (W. Va. 1985). Petitioner* cite no reported decisions urging a contrary conclusion. See 85-98 Pet. 14-15 & n.29; 85-99 Pet. 13-14& n.28.

17 ” The court of appeals, sensitive to German territorial sovereignly, specifically observed that the Convention should be employed in the case of an “involuntary deposition of a party conducted in a foreign country” (85-98 Pet. App. 26a; see 85-99 Pet.App.7a). SeeIn re Ljusne Kaliing, A.B., No. 85-2573 (5th Cir. Dec. II, 1985)(holding that the plaintiffs must use the Hague Evidence Convention in the first instance when seeking on site inspections and depositions on foreign soil).

18 “ Germany's assertion of judicial sovereignty, advanced through diplomatic notes and participation in this litigation, is,of course, entitled to similar consideration. We note, however, that the record in these cases does not reveal the precise nature of Germany's “judicial sovereignty.” That concept perhaps reflects Germany's general interest in protecting ihe personal privacy of its citizens. But if that is the case, the German interest should receive diminished deference from foreign tribunals in situations where the German citizen has, in effect, waived that protection by taking actions that subject him to the foreign court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is not clear whether German courts would decline to order production of evidence located in a foreign country. One German commentator has suggested that “European courts make a similar claim, although this claim is hidden behind a different configuration of the relevant legal institutions and norms.” P. Schlosscr,Der Jtislizkon/likt zuischen den USA mid Europa 44 (1985) (English Summary). See alsoid. at 45-46.

19 “ The magistrate rejected Anschuetz's challenge to the breadth of the discovery order. See 85-98 Pet. App. 4a-5a. We express no opinion whether that ruling is correct under American discovery standards. Messerichmitl did not challenge the scope or relevance of the discovery sought. See 85-99 Pet. App. lla.

20 Other courts have refused to follow the Hague Evidence Convention under similar circumstances. See,e.g., Lowrunce v.ll'einig, 107 F.R.D. 386 (W.D. Tenn. 1985);Work v.Bier, 106F.R.D.45(D.D.C. 1985);International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Inc. v.Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1984);Compagnie Francaise D'Assurance v.Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D.16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984);Murphy v.Reifenhauser KG Muschinenfabrik, 101 F.R.D.360 (D. Vi. 1984);Craco. Inc. v.Kremlin, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503 (N.D. ill. 1984);Lasky v.Continental Products Corp., 569 F.Supp. 1227 (E.D. Pa. 1983);Wilson v.Lufthansa German Airlines, 108 A.D.2d 393, 489 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1985).

21 InAnscliueiz, the court of appeals stated (85-98 Pel. App. 26a) thai “|t|he Hague Convention has no application at all to the production of evidence in this country by a party subject to the jurisdiction of u district court pursuant to the Federal Rules.” This statement, viewed in isolation, is plainly overbroad. We view it, in context, as simply a poorly-phrased observation that the Convention is not exclusive. Indeed, the court of appeals quickly added that if “discovery of Anschuetz in Germany becomes particularly in trusive ‘. ilien the (district﹜ court may order ihe parties to conduct that discovery under the Hague Convention”(ibid.). And the court of appeals inAlesserschillill undertook a brief comity analysis even I hough the discovery order under review was limited to production of evidence wiihin Ihe United Slates (85-99 Pet. App. 3a-5a). Some courts, in interpretingAnschuetz. have placed undue weight on theAnschuetz dictum. SeeIn re Suciew Nillionale In- dusirielle Aerospatiale, 782 F.2d 120, 124 (8th Cir. 1986);Lowrance v.Weinig. 107 F.R.D. 386. 389 (W.D. Tenn. 1985). We do not understand that dictum as displacing the need for a discriminating comity analysis even in those instances where discovery from parties is to occur in I lie United States. See work or v.Bier, 106 F.R.D. 45. 54-56 (D.D.C. 1985);GriJJh v.Aerospatiale Helicopter Corp., Civ. No. A-83_:602 (D. Alaska June 3, 1985). slip op. 8-12, petition for mandamus pending. No. 85-7556 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 10, 1985). In all events, this Court “reviews judgments, not statements in opinions.”Black v.Cuttr Luboruloiies. 351 U.S. 292. 297 (1956).

22 See,e.g..International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v.Lee, 105 F.R.D.435, 449-450 (S.D.N.Y.1984);Compagnie Francuisc D'Assurance v.Plulljps Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 29-32 (S.D.N.Y.1984);Murphy v.Reifenhauser KG Muschinenfabrik. 101 F.R.D.360, 362-363 (D. Vi. 1984).

23 InAnschuetz. the court of appeals “left this comity analysis to the district court on remand” (85-99 Pet. App. 4a; see 85-98 Pel. App. 27a), while inMesserschmitt, the court itself conducted a brief comity analysis (85-99 Pet. App. 4a-5a). These decisions thus recognize that a comity analysis is necessary. The Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed the importance of comity con-siderations inIn re Ljusne Katting. A.B., No. 85-2573 (5th Cir.Dec.11,1985), holding that the Hague Evidence Convention must be used in the first instance when seeking on-site inspections on foreign soil and depositions of foreign nationals outside the control of the foreign defendant

24 The trial court inStarcher ruled that West Virginia discovery procedures must be followed despite the existence of the Convention, apparently giving no consideration to the comparative effectiveness of the Convention's alternative procedures. See 328 S.E.2d at 495. In reversing, the West Virginia Supreme Court indicated that “the principle of international comity dictates first resort to [Convention) procedures until it appears that such attempt has proven fruitless and that further action is necessary to prevent an impasse.” 328 S.E.2d at 506. By contrast, the district judge inAnschueiz and the magistrate inMesserschmill had both determined, prior to appellate review, that use of the Convention would not provide fully adequate discovery (see 85-98 Pet. App. 32; 85-99 Pet. App. 14a). The court of appeals plainly considered this factor important (see 85-98 Pet. App. 15a-16a; 85-99 Pet. App. 3a-5a). Thus, the divergent results among the cases may simply reflect dif-ferent perceptions of the Convention's effectiveness. Other decisions from lower courts that ha\e required first resort to the Convention procedures can also be reconciled on this basis. SeeLaker Airways. Ltd. v.Pan American World Airways. 103 F.R.D. 42, 51 (D.D.C. 1984);Philadelphia Gear Corp. v.American Pfamer Corp.. 100 F.R.D. 58, 60 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 1983);Pierburg GmbH &Co.KGv.Superior Court, 137 Cal. App. 3d 238, 244, 186 Cal. Rptr. 876, 880 (1982);Vincent v.Ateliers de la Motobecane, S.A.. 193 N.J. Super. 716. 721-724, 475 A.2d 686,689-691 (1984);Th. Goldschmidt A.G. v.Smith. 676 S.W.2J 443,445 (Tex.Ct.App.1984).

25 We note, in particular, that the purported conflict presents a comparatively minor difference in the accommodation of foreign claims of judicial sovereignty, is purely procedural, and does not subject similarly situated litigants to different standards of liability. The West Virginia litiuum, like petitioners, remains obligated to produce the requested discovery; he is simply permitted to attempt production, in the first instance, through the Convention procedures. See 328 S.E.2d at 506. It would appear that future West Virginia litigants seeking foreign discovery can resist first recourse to the Convention by establishing to the court's satisfaction that use of the Convention will prove fruitless. Likewise, we expect that future Fifth Circuit litigants seeking foreign discovery may be required to resort to the Convention if the foreign party can demonstrate that use of the Convention will provide effective and efficient discovery

1 We wish to advise the Court that while there have been no further proceedings in No. 85-98 since the decision below in that case, in No. 85-99 trial of the claims of the non-settling plaintiffs is scheduled to commence on April 14,1986, without petitioner Messer-schmitt having made production of the documents sought from Germany.

2 This note and the second German note of November 26, 1986, are reproduced in Appendices 1 and 2.

3 This second French note, together with an informal translation,is reproduced in Appendix 3.

4 Professor Meessen's analysis is contained in Appendix 4.

5 The third major position—that the Convention is the exclusive means of discovering foreign-located information(see cases cited at 85-98 Pet. 15 n.29)—rests largely on an interpretation of the Convention rather than a comity analysis. Evidently the United States once understood the Convention as being exclusive.See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 6,Volksioagenwerk A.G.V. Falzon, 104 S.Ct.1260(appeal dismissed), reh. denied, 104 S.Ct.1932 1984): “The parties to the Convention contemplated that proceedings not authorized by the Convention would not be permitted.” (We note that while Professor Meessen's analysis strongly supports, from the perspective of customary international law, our position on the first use of Convention procedures, it does not support the position advanced in the diplomatic notes, the Solicitor General'sFalzon brief, and in our petitions (to which we adhere) that the Convention should be interpreted as providing the exclusive means for obtaining foreign evidence.

6 For a discussion of the distinction between the legal and political interpretations of comity, see Maier,Extraterritorial Jurisdiction At a Crossroads, 76 Am.J.Int'l L.280,283-84,303-16(1984). For an explanation of how the analysis of comity factors generates choice-of-law rules, see Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6, Comment c.

7 We are advised that a petition for a writ of certiorari to review theAerospatiale decision will be filed in this Court on April 16,1986.

8 Contrary to the impression created by the discussion in footnote 21 of the Solicitor General's brief, all four of the lower court deci sion's cited there—includingWork andGriffin—read the decision below as holding that the Evidence Convention has no application to party production in the United States of foreign-located information.

9 While the Solicitor General purports not to understand the “precise nature of Germany's ‘judicial sovereignty'” as it is affected by U.S.style discovery (Br.at 15 n.18), enlightenment can be obtained from the sources elsewhere cited by the Solicitor General himself (Br.at 6 n.5) and, especially, from the section of Professor Meessen's analysis entitled “German Interests.” Appendix 4, pp. 32a-38a.

1 Dr.iur.; Professor of Public Law, International Law and European Law at the University of Augsburg, Federal Republic of Germany; currently Visiting Professor of International Law at the Law School of the University of Chicago; Special Consultant on International Economic Law to the American Law Institute regarding the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised).

2 In re Anschuetz Co. GmbH, 754 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1985);In re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm GmbH, 757 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1985). Upon petitions for certiorari, both cases are presently pending before the United States Supreme Court. The following opinion has been prepared in view of those proceedings at the request of Gerling-Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft, Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany. Gerling is the insurer of product liability risks to both petitioners.

3 Anschütz, at 615.

4 Measerachmitt, at 730.

5 For a similar view cf. Pierburg GmbH and Co., KG v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 186 Cal. Rptr. 876, at 882 (1982); Coopers Industries Inc. v. British Aerospace Inc., No. 83 Civil 6366 (DNE) (S.D.N.Y. 1984).

6 Bekanntmachung über das Inkrafttreten des Haagcr Dberein-kommens iiber die Beweisaufnahme im Ausland in Zivil oder Han-delssachen vom 21. Juni 1979, Bundesgesetzblatt 1979, Teil II, 780.

7 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 7444.

8 Anschtüz, at615.

9 Bernhard H. Oxman, The Choice between Direct Discovery and Other Means of Obtaining Evidence Abroad: The Impact of the Hague Evidence Convention, 37 UnivMiamiLRev 733, at 740 (1983).

10 In addition to the Convention, see German note to U.S. Embassy in Bonn of October 17, 1979, and U.S. note to German Foreign Office of February 1, 1980, both published in: Bruno A. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance (Civil and Commercial), vol. II, at C 1-78 et seq.

11 Anschutz und Co. Gmbh v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority, et al., No. 86-98, Supreme Court of the United States, Petition for writ of certiorari, Brief for the Federal Republic of Germany as amicus curiae of August 1, 1985; a scholarly investigation, privately undertaken for the same period, revealed a lower total, but about the same proportion of requests granted in relation to requests denied: 63 to 12 (Harald Koch, Zur Praxis der Rechtshilfe im amerikanisch-deutschen Prozessrecht, Ergebnisse einer Umfrage zu dem Haager Zustellunga- und Beweisubereinkommen, 5 Praxis des International Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 245, at 247 (1985)

12 Bundesgesetzblatt 1977 Teil II, 3105, as translated by Bruno A. Riatau (note 10), at CI-84.

13 Id.,note 12.

14 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Report on the Second Meeting of the Special Commission on the Operation on the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, Prepared by the Permanent Bureau,July 1985.

15 OLG München, Decisions of October 31, 1980 and of November 27, 1980, 9 VA 3/80 und 4/80, 20 International Legal Materials 1025,1049 (1981).

16 Charles Platto, Taking Evidence Abroad for Use in Civil Cases in the United States: A Practical Guide, 16 International Lawyer 575, at 584, 585 (1982).

17 James Vincent et al. v. Ateliers de la Motobecane S.A., 475 A.2d 686, at 690 (NJ.Super.A.D. 1984).

18 For the same view cf. e.g. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp. et al., 100 F.R.D. 58 (E.D. Pa. 1983); Comment, the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad In Civil or Commercial Matters: The Exclusive and Mandatory Procedures for Discovery Abroad, 132 UPaLRev 1461, at 1476 (1984).

19 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, Bundesgesetzblatt 1977 Teil II1453.

20 Anschütz, at 615.

21 Bundesregierung,Denkschrift zu den übereinkommen, Bun-destags-Drucksache 8/217,38,at 40-41 (1977).

22 Anschütz, at 615.

23 Messerschmitt, at 732-738.

24 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), Tentative Draft No. 2 (1981).

25 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), Final Draft, to be published shortly.

26 Cf. Karl M. Meessen, Antitrust Jurisdiction Under Customary International Law, 78 AmJInt'lL 783 (1984); idem, Extraterritoriality of Export Control: A German Lawyer's View of the Pipeline Case, 27 German Yearbook of International Law 97 (1984).

27 The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1965).

28 Cf. e.g. Restatement in the Courts, Cumulative Annual Pocket Part For Use In 1985-1986, Reporting All Cases Through June 1984 that cite Restatement of the- Law, Second, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, at 61 et seq. (1985).

29 Timberlane Lumber Co., et al., v. Bank of America N.T. & S.A. et al., 749 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 105 S.Ct. 3514 (1985).

30 Laker Airways Limited v. Sabena, et al., 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

31 Laker v. Sabena (note 30), at 937; for a general evaluation of the Laker opinion cf. Meessen, Antitrust Jurisdiction (note 26), at 786 et seq., 801 et seq

32 The American Law Institute (note 28), §403 (1) and (2)(h).

33 See above notes 22 and 23.

34 Conference de la Haye de droit international prive, Actes et documents de la onzieme session, 7 au 26 octobre 1968, tome IV, Obtention des preuves a 1'etranger, at 22 (1970)—author's translation from the French original.

35 U.S. Delegation to the 11th session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Report of April 1969, 8 International Legal Materials 785, at 806 (1969).

36 Messerschmitt, at 732.

37 Benjamin Kaplan/Arthur T. von Mehren/Rudolf Schaefer, Phases of German Civil Procedure, 71 HarvLRev 1193, 1443, at 1471 (1958).

38 For a comprehensive English language description, the author's preference for the German system left aside, cf. John H. Langbein, The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 823 (1985); cf. also Rolf Bender/Christoph Strecker, Access to Justice in the Federal Republic of Germany, in: Mauro Cappelletti/Bryant Garth (eds.), Access to Justice, Volume I, Book II, at 551 et seq. (1978); Hartwig von Westerholt/Pcter Lantz, Litigation in Civil Courts, in Bernd RUster (ed.), Business Transactions in Germany, Volume I, Chapter 5, at 5-34 et seq (1983); Donald R. Shemansky, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Impact of the Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial Cooperation, 17 International Lawyer 465 (1983); Peter Gottwald, Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany, 31 Amjcompl 687 (1983); Axel Heck, Transnational Litigation: Federal Republic of Germany and the E.E.C., 18 International Lawyer 793 (1984); Hans Schima/Hans Hoyer, Ordinary Proceedings in First Instance: Central European Countries, in: International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Volume XVI, Chapter 6, p. 6-130 (1984).

39 Wolfram Henckel, Vom Gerechtigkeitswert verfahrensrecht-licher Normen, passim (1966); Karl August Bettermann, Verfas-eungsrechtliche Grundlagen und Grundsatze des Prozesses, 94 Juristische Blatter, 67, at 63 (1972); Rudolf Wassermann, Der soziale Zivilprozess, Aufklarung im Zivilprozess, at 38 et seq. (1982); for a short English-language reference to the concept see Peter Gottwald (note 38), Rolf Bender/Christoph Strecker (note 38) and especially Langbein (note 38), at 831 and 843.

40 Basic Law of May 23, 1949, Articles 20 (1) and 3 (1); an English translation is published in: Amos J. Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations, 3d ed., vol.III, at 357 et seq. (1968).

41 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Ruling of April 29,1980,54 Ent-scheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Bverfge) 117, at 124-125.

42 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Ruling of March 24,1976,42 Bverfge 64, at 78-79.

43 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Ruling of April 24,1979,51 Bverfge 150, at 156 et seq.

44 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Ruling of January 22,1959,9 Bverfge 125, et seq.; cf. also Bundesverfassungsgericht, Ruling of July 25, 1979, 52 Bverfge 131, at 144 et seq. and Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of July 1, 1980, 54 Bverfge 237, at 273.

45 For a recent discussion, with further references to doctrine and court practice, see Klaus Vogel/Wolfgang Martens, Gefahren-abwehr, 9th ed.,at 389 et seq. (1986).

46 Karl Heinz Schwab/Peter Gottwald, Verfassung und Zivil-prozess, at 67 (1984); proportionality being an undisputed guideline under German public law, there has not yet been any need for an extensive discussion of its application to civil procedure.

47 As to this point, see Peter Schlosser, Internationale Recht-shilfe und rechtsstaatlicher Schutz von Beweispersonen, 94 Zeit-schrift fur Zivilprozessrecht, 369 passim (1981).

48 Anschütz, at 609, 611 et seq.

49 Messerschmitt, at 732.

50 Supra at 11-18 of this opinion.

51 Anschü, at 613.

52 Cf. Meessen, Antitrust Jurisdiction (note 26), at 798 et seq.

53 For a recent survey of cf. Gary B. Born, Recent British Responses to the Extraterritorial Application of United States Law: The Midland Bank Decision and Retaliatory Legislation Involving Unitary Taxation, 26 VirgJInt'lL 91 (1985/1986).

54 For the related point of U.S. enforcement of U.S. orders see above at 6.