Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T00:49:53.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Execution against the Foreign Sovereign's Property: The Current Scene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

William L. Griffin
William L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Fourth Session
Information
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting (1921-1969) , Volume 55 , 1961 , pp. 105 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1961

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.)

References

1 192 N.Y. Supp. 2d 469 (1959). See p. 107 below for additional statement of facts. Cf.Zittman v.McGrath, 341 U.S. 446 (1950), and Commission for Polish Relief v.Banco Nationala a Rumaniei, 288 N.Y. 332 (1942), involving in remproceedings as to property frozen by Executive Order.

2 Pursuant to N.Y. Civil Proc. Act, sees. 232 (1), and 910, and Rule 52, N.Y. Rules of Civil Proc.

3 348 U.S. 356 (1955); 49 A.J.I.L. 405 (1955).

4 (a) Philippine Alien Prop. Admin, v.Castelo, G.B. No. L-3981, Phil. Sup. Ct. 1951, order of execution vacated on ground foreign sovereign respondent (TJ.S.) had not consented to suit, (b) Petition of Eecht, 60 F. Supp. 103 (1945), enforcement of attorney's lien is precluded by foreign sovereign immunity, (c) Bradford v.Chase Bank, 24 F. Supp. 28 (1938), denying constructive trust on Philippine funds, (d) L'Etat Portugais v.Sauvage, Ct. of Appeal, Brussels, 1921. Annual Digest 1919-22, Case No. 304. (e) Spain v.Casaux (Lambege and Puyot), Ct. of Cassation, France, 1849, Annual Digest 1938-40, p. 242, note 2. (f) De Booij v.Germany, 1916-1924, Allen, The Position of Foreign States Before National Courts 110-138 (1933).

5 See 54 A.J.I.L. 640 (1960) for exhaustive discussion and quotation of the Department's letter to the Attorney General regarding the suggestion of immunity.

6 For illustrative quotations, see Comment, Art. 23(b), Harvard Eeseareh, Draft Convention on Competence of Courts in Eegard to Foreign States (1932), 26 A.J.I.L. Supp. 706 (1932).

7 (a) Duff Development Co. v.Kelantan Govt., 1 Ch. Div. 385, 421 (1923). (b) X v.den Osmanischen Eeichsfiskus, Kammergeicht, Berlin, 1919, 38 Eechtsprechung der Oberlandesgerichte 225 (1919), 30 Niemeyers Zeitschrift fur Internationales Eecht 269 (1923). The court said that execution interferes more with the independence of the sovereign than judgment on the merits.

8 Turkish Purchase Commission Case, Prussian Tribunal for Conflicts of Jurisdiction, May 29, 1920, Juristische Woehenschrift, 1921, p. 773; Annual Digest 1919-22, Case No. 77; X v.das Turkische Eeich, ibid.1478.

9 Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt fiir das Konigreich Bayern, 1885 Beilage I, 1, 15-16.

10 (a) Sweden v.Petrocochino, Seine Civil Tribunal, 1929, Dalloz 1930, I, p. 15. (b) Solon v.Egypt, Seine Civil Tribunal, 1847, Dalloz 1849, I, p. 7. (c) Mrs. J. W. v.Latvia, Landgericht, Berlin, 1953, 48 A.J..I.L. 161 (1954), 49 ibid.574 (1955). (d) Statul Sarbesc v.Queen Natalia, Ct. of Cassation, Bumania, 1906, 36 Dreptul 175 (1907).

11 Allen, op. cit.280-282.

12 (a) A. v.die Turkisehe Eegierung, Sup. Ct. of Austria, 1866, Allen, op. cit.267-268. (b) Socifros v.tISSE, Ct. of Appeal of Aix, 1938, Annual Digest, 1938-40, Case No. 80. (c) Hellfeld v.den Fiskus des Bussischen Reich, Prussian Ct. of Conflicts, 1910, 5 A.J.I.L. 490 (1911). (d) De Belgische Staat v.Soci^te Chemin de Fer International, Hooge Eaad, The Hague, 1903, Allen, op. cit.105-107. (e) Mexico v.Eask, 118 Calif. App. 21 (1931).

13 43 F. 2d 705 (1930); 25 A.J.I.L. 360 (1931).

14 Assuming the cause of action in the Weilamann case, above, can be characterized as jure gestionis,that case could be considered as falling within this category. Other cases include that cited in note 16 below and (a) Brasseur v.Greece, Ct. of Appeal, Brussels, 1933, Annual Digest 1931-32, Case No. 85. (b) Vve. Caratier-Terasson v.Chemins de fer Alsace-Lorraine, Ct. of Cassation, France, 1885, Allen, op. cit.181-182, defendant admitted jurisdiction recommercial operation, (c) Officina del Aceite v.Domenech, Ct. of Appeal, Aix, 1939, Annual Digest 1938-40, Case No. 81. (d) Rossignol v.Czech State, Seine Civil Trib., 1949, Annual Digest 1949, Case No. 40.

15 (a) Coale v.Soc. Suisse des Cliarbons, 21 F. 2d 180 (1921). (b) U.S. v.Deutscher Kalisyndikat Gesellsohaft, 31 F. 2d 199 (1929). (c) Bussian Trade Delegation v.Gere Co., Seine Civil Trib. 1930, Annual Digest 1929-30, Case No. 8. (d) Sov. Bepublie (Immunity in Greece Case), Ct. of Athens, 1928, Annual Digest 1927-28, Case No. 109. (e) Egyptian Delta Eice Mills v.Comisara General de Madrid, Commercial Trib., Alexandria, 1943, Annual Digest 1943-45, Case No. 27.

16 S.A. de Chemins de Fer Lifigeois-Luxembourgeois c. Etat Neerlandais, Pasicrisie Beige, 1903, I, 294.

17 Socobelge v.Greece, Civil Trib. Brussels, 1951, 79 Journal du Droit Int. (Clunet) 244 (No. 1, 1952); 47 A.J.I.L. 508 (1953). is State v.Vestwig, Ct. of Cassation, France, 1946, Annual Digest, 1946, Case No. 32.

18 State v.Vestwig, Ct. of Cassation, France, 1946, Annual Digest, 1946, Case No. 32. 19 55 A.J.I.L. 167 (1961).

20 Harris and Co. v.Cuba, 127 80. 2d 687.

21 See also Holoubek v.U.S., Sup. Ct. of Austria, Feb. 10, 1961: In cases jure gestionisexecution is not precluded by international law (dictum).

22 26 Dept. of State Bulletin 984^985 (1952).