Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:04:11.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confiscation of property in Czechoslovakia in 1945—exclusion of German jurisdiction—Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation—nationality in international law—neutrality of Liechtenstein in World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bernard H. Oxman  and
Bardo Fassbender
Bardo Fassbender
Affiliation:
Humboldt University Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prince of Liechtenstein v. Federal Supreme Court. Case 2 BvR 1981/97. 36 Archiv des Volkerrechts 198 (1998).

German Federal Constitutional Court (3d Chamber, 2d Senate), January 28, 1998.

On January 28, 1998, a chamber of the German Constitutional Court decided that the Court would not deal with a constitutional complaint brought before it by Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, Head of State of die Principality of Liechtenstein. In effect, the chamber thus upheld the decisions made by the civil courts rejecting the Prince's attempt to recover a family painting confiscated by Czechoslovakia and currently on loan to a German museum.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 215 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

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 The complaint was brought in accordance with Article 93, paragraph 1 (4a) of the German Constitution (Basic Law). See Grundgesetz [GG], translated in 7 Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Albert P. Blaustein & Gisbert H. Flanz eds., 1994). Section 93b of the Statute of the Constitutional Court, as amended in 1993, empowers chambers of three judges unanimously to decide that the Court will not adjudicate a constitutional complaint, provided that the complaint is not of fundamental importance or does not have a chance of succeeding. The chambers are free to give reasons for such a decision; in the present case, the chamber chose to do so. Gesetz iiber das Bundesverfassungsgericht (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt [BGB1.] I 1993, S.1474, 1485.

2 Decree concerning the confiscation and speedy distribution of the agricultural property of Germans, Hungarians and traitors to and enemies of the Czech and Slovak people, 4 Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost-Mitteleuropa, pt. 1, at 225 (Bundesministeriums für Vertriebene, Flüchtlinge und Kriegsgeschädigte ed., 1957) (German trans.).

3 Decision of Oct. 10, 1995, Case 5 O 182/92, 16 Praxis des Internationalen Prtvat- und Verfahrensrechts 419 (1996). For a critical comment, see Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, Völkerrechtswidrigkeit der Konfiskation eines Gemäldes aus der Sammlung des Fürsten von Liechtenstein als angeblich “deutsches” Eigentum, id. at 410.

4 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation, May 26,1952 (as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, signed at Paris on Oct. 23, 1954), BGB1. II 1955, S.405, 440, 6 UST 441, TIAS No. 3425, 332 UNTS 219.

5 Sept. 12, 1990, BGB1. II 1990, S.1318, reprintedin 29 ILM 1186 (1990).

6 See Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States, Oct. 1, 1990, BGB1. II 1990, S.1331, reprinted in 85 AJIL 175 (1991).

7 Exchange of notes of Sept. 27 and 28, 1990. See, in particular, paragraph 3 of the German note, BGB1. II 1990, SS.1386, 1387–88.

8 Sec. I(2b) (aa) of the decision, supra note 3.

9 Decision of Jan. 29, 1953, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen [BGHZ] 8, S.378, 383.

10 See sec. I(2b)(bb) of the decision, supra note 3.

11 See id., subpara. (cc).

12 Id., subpara. (dd).

13 Decision of July 9, 1996, Case 22 U 215/95, 42 Recht in Ost und West 242 (1998), 8 Zeitschrift für Vermögens- und Immobiuenrecht 213 (1998).

14 See id., sec. I(2b)(aa). In addition to the decision of the German Supreme Court cited by the lower court, supra note 9, the appellate court referred to a later decision of the same court, that of April 11, 1960, BGHZ 32, 170.

15 Bundesgerichtshof, Sept. 25, 1997, case II ZR 213/96.

16 The Constitutional Court does not comprehensively review the decisions of lower courts. The complainant can claim violation, by an act of one of the branches of government, only of a fundamental right or freedom protected by the Basic Law. See GG, supra note 1, Art. 93, para. 1(4a).

17 Case 2 BvR 1981/97, sec. 11(1), last para.

18 Under GG, supra note 1, Art. 2, para. 1.

19 See supra note 7.

20 Landgericht Koln, Case 5 O 388/91.

21 See Christian Tomuschat, Die Vertreibung der Sudetendeutschen: Zur Frage des Bestehens von Rechtansprüchen nach Völkerrecht und deutschem Recht, 56 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1, 41–43, 55–57 (1996). See also Seidl-Hohenveldem, supra note 3, at 411.

22 See Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guat.), Second Phase, 1955 ICJ Rep. 4, 24 (Apr. 6).

23 See supra notes 9 and 14.

24 See Hermann Weber, Anmerkung zur “Liechtenstein-Entscheidung” des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 28. Januar 1998, 36 Archiv des Völkerrechts 188, 192–93 (1998).