No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Problems of Soviet International Law of Civil Procedure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
In Soviet legal writings devoted to International Law of civil procedure it is taken for granted that the rules of the internal procedural law, which determine the local (territorial) competence of Soviet courts, function at the same time as rules which delimit international competence in civil law cases. Or as Marakov puts it: “En droit russe- en droit d'avant la révolution ainsi qu'en droit soviétique—la compétence générale coincide avec la compétence spéciale. Autrement dit, on étend les règles du droit interne de compétence spéciale aux rapports internationaux: en déterminant la compétence d'un tribunal de Moscou, on la délimite par rapport à la compétence du tribunaux d'Odessa ainsi que par rapport à la compétence des tribunaux de Berlin, de Paris, de Londres etc.”
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1963
References
1. Makarov, A. N., Recueil des Cours, 1931, p. 501.Google Scholar
2. See Gsovski, V., 1949, vol. II, p. 571Google Scholar; Pisar, S., 1957, p. 603.Google Scholar
3. See Annex.
4. See Boguslavskiĭ M. M., Rubanov A. A.: Grazhdansko -protsessual'nye prava inostrantsev v SSSR (Civil-procedural rights of foreigners in the USSR). Published in: Sovetskiĭ Ezhegodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Soviet Yearbook of Intern. Law), 1959, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar Refered to as Soviet Yearbook of International Law 1959; cf. also: Goikhbarg, A. G., International Law (Mezhduna-rodnoe Pravo) M. 1928, p. 144Google Scholar; Marysheva, N. J., Boguslavski, M. M.ĭ “Pravovoe Sotrudnichestvo Sotsialisticheskikh gosudarstv, In: Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1961, no. 11, p. 94.Google Scholar
5. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov 1959, p. 193Google Scholar; Lunts, , 1959, p. 186Google Scholar; Boguslavskĭ-Rubanov, Yearbook of I.L. 1959, pp. 181–201.Google ScholarBoguslavskiĭ-Rubanov, Pravovoe polozhenie inostrantsev v SSSR-1959, pp. 110–111.Google Scholar
6. The basic rules of Intern. Civil Procedure are laid down in the last part (VI) of the “Fundamentals”. See Annex!
7. L. A. Lunts: Voprosy pravovoe položheniia inostrantsev i primeneniia inostrannych zakonov v Osnovakh grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva i Osnovakh grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva Sojuza SSR i Sojuznikh respoblik. In: Novoe v Grazhdanskom i Grazhdansko- protsessual'nom zakonodatel'stve Sojuza SSR i Sojuznich respublik. (pp. 63–72) Moskva 1962. Refered to as: Novoe v Gr. i. Gr. - prots. zak., 1962.Google Scholar
8. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, p. 193.Google Scholar As to the rights of foreigners in the USSR see: Gsovski, ĭ VI,. 1949, vol. I, p. 353.Google Scholar
9. Foreign legal entities which are not authorized to conduct business in the RSFSR, enjoy, in the RSFSR courts the rights to sue defendants residing within the RSFSR, but only on the basis of reciprocity”, (sect. 8, note 2 of the law enacting the RSFSR Civil Code of November 11, 1922) Cf. Gsovski, ĭ, 1949, vol. II, p. 11.Google Scholar Licenses for conducting business in the USSR are issued by the Soviet Government. (Note 1, art. 8 of the same law). Cf. also: Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, p. 194.Google Scholar
10. See Lunts, in “Novoe v Gr. i Gr.-prots. zak”. 1962, p. 64.Google Scholar
11. Boguslavskij, M. M., Rubanov, A. A.: Pravovovoe polozhenie inostrantsev v SSSR 2e izd. (Legal Status of foreigners in the USSR, 2nd ed.), Moskva 1962., p. 32.Google Scholar
12. Boguslavskiĭ-Rubanov, Yearbook of Intern. Law 1959, p. 187.Google ScholarPereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, p. 194.Google Scholar
13. See: sect. 2 of the Comm. agreement with Sweden of 1924; sect. 11 of the agreement with Norway of 1925; sect. 13 of the agreement with Denmark of 1946; sect. 8 of the agreement with Iran of 1940; sect. 12 of the agreement with Rumania of 1947; sect. 4 of the agreement with France of 1951 ctc: All of them contain provisions analogical to that in the agreement with Denmark of 1946.
14. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, p. 195.Google Scholar
15. idem p. 195.
16. Cf. Supplement to the commercial agreement with Denmark of 1946. Commercial agreement with France of 1951; Agreement with Sweden (1927) on legal status of Soviet trade agency: ect.
17. See Vedomosti SSSR 1959, no. 30, text no. 163. According to a decree on the state arbitration in the USSR dated 18–8–1;960, said legal entities may refer their disputes to an ad hoc arbitration.
18. Cf. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, pp. 197–206Google Scholar; Pereterskiĭ-Krylov 1940, p. 118–131.Google ScholarLunts, , 1959, p. 187–188.Google Scholar Boguslavskiĭ M. M., Immunitet inostrannogo gosudarstva i ego sobstvennost: in: Voprosy, M. Ch. Pravo 1956, p. 58.Google Scholar Lisovskiĭ V. I., Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo 1955, Moskva pp. 223–225.Google Scholar
19. See: Sobranie Zakonov SSSR 1933, no. 59, p. 354.Google Scholar
20. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov 1959, p. 206Google Scholar; Lisovskiĭ V. I., 1955, p. 224Google Scholar; cf. also Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1940, p. 124.Google Scholar
21. The same opinion has been expressed by French “Court d'appèl d'Aix (4e Ch) 9–XII–1938, which has refused execution of a judgement against a foreign Sovereign with the following motivation:
“Mai attendu qu'en admettant que l'Etat étranger ait laissé une jurisdiction française trancher le litige le concernant, le bénéficiaire de la sentence ne pourrait acquérir de ce fait le droit de l'exécuter sur l'Etat condamné, par la saisie de ses biens, qu'ils appartiennent au domaine public ou privé, car semblable exécution constituerait, hors le cas d'une renonciation expresse de l'État à ce privilège, un act de violence incompatible avec la souveraineté et l'indépendance des États.” Cf. Journal du Droit International 1939, no. 3–4, p. 599.Google Scholar
22. See Lunts, in: Novoe v Gr. i Gr.-prots. zak. 1962, p. 64.Google Scholar
23. Among the supporters of the absolute immunity are classified f.i. Great Britain, Germany, The Netherlands and until 1952 also the USA. The USA has changed its attitude in 1952 when the Department of State has announced that “with respect to its own action regarding requests from foreign governments for a grant of immunity from suit, it would follow the restrictive theory,” developed in the civil law countries lead by Belgium and Italy, and providing that with respect to her acts of private character a State is held to be properly subject to suit before the local courts in the same way as private persons. (Conf. Seiser V. G.: The immunity of the State and Government economic activities. In: Law and Contemporary Problems, 1959 no. 2, pp. 291–316Google Scholar; see also: Fensterwald, B. Jr: Sovereign Immunity and Soviet State Trading. Harvard Law Review, vol. 63, 1949/1950, pp. 614–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. See Fensterwald, (Op. cit. (note 19) p. 636)Google Scholar and the by him quoted decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in the case Weber v. Promsyrioimport, where the USSR was involved (April 30, 1942, [1942] Nederlandsche Jurisprudentie 1148).
25. Kiralfy, A.: A soviet Approach to Private International Law, published in: The International Law Quarterly, 1951, p. 122.Google Scholar
26. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, pp. 206–210Google Scholar; Vilkov, G. E.: Vorposy grazhdanskogo protsessa v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave. In: Voprosy Mezhd. Ch Prava, Moscow, 1956, p. 209–223.Google Scholar
(Questions of Civil Procedure in Private International Law, in: Questions of Private International Law, Moscow 1956, p.p 209–223.)Google Scholar
D. J. Polumodrinov; Osnovnye Nachala Mezhdunarodnogo Protsessual'nogo prava (Basic principles of International Procedural Law) In: Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR, no. 5, 1950, pp. 371–375.Google Scholar
27. See: Naurhno-prakticheskij kommentarij k Osnovam Grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva Sojuza SSR i Sojuznych respublik. Red.: P. Bardin, I.. Moskva 1962. (p. 220).Google Scholar
28. Cf. Sbornii deistvuiushchikh postanovlenii Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda SSSR, 1924–1957. (Collection of instructions in operation issued by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR, 1924–1957).Google Scholar Moscow, 1958, p. 192–194; see also Menzhinskiĭ V., Dogovory o pravovoi vzaimopomoshchi mezhdu SSSR i drugimu stranami (Agreements of mutual legal aid between the USSR and other countries) In: Sovetskaia lustitsiia, 1958, no. 8, pp. 25–29.Google Scholar
29. Cf. Soviet Agreements on legal aid: with Czechoslovakia, 31–VIII–1957; with the DDR, 28–XI–1957; with Bulgaria, 12–XII–1957; Hungary 15–VII–1958, Rumania 3–IV–1958; Poland 28–XII–1957, etc.
30. See: Instruction no. 2 The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the USSR, dated 19–VII–1959, published in “Bulletin Verkhovnogo Suda USSR, 1959, no. 4, p. 8Google Scholar; see also: Batiffol H. Les règles de conflicts de lois dans les traités entre l'URSS et les démocraties populaires. Revue Critique de Droit Int. Privé no. 3, 1960, p. 287–296.Google Scholar
31. See Evseev P. N., Ispolnenie Sudebnykh porucheniĭ i resheniĭ inostranngkh sudov. In: Lunts, , 1960, pp. 182–190.Google Scholar (Carrying out judicial requests and decisions of foreign courts); see also Boguslavskiĭ-Rubanov, : In: Soviet Yearbook of Intern. Law 1958, M., 1959, p. 275.Google Scholar Cf. also: Menzhinskiĭ, V., Dogovory o pravovoi vzaimopomoshche mezhdu SSSR i dirigimi stranami, Sovetskaia justitsiia, 1958, no. 8, pp. 23–29.Google ScholarMarysheva, N. I., Boguslavski, M. M.ĭ, Legal cooperation between Socialist countries (Pravovoe Sotrudnichestvo sotsialisticheskikh gosudarstv), In: Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, no. 11, 1961, pp. 100–101Google Scholar; Marysheva-Bogulsavski, ĭ, Sovetskoe Gosud. i pravo 1961, no. 11, pp. 92–103.Google Scholar
32. Cf. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, p. 213Google Scholar; Lunts, 1956, p. 217–220.Google Scholar More extensive rules are laid down in the procedural Codes of the Satellite countries.
The F. I. Bulgarian Code of Civil Procedure of 1953 provides that: “decisions of foreign courts shall be recognized and executed in the Republic when between Bulgaria and the respective foreign country there is an agreement on this matter”, (are. 303)
Art. 307 is setting forth the cases of non-execution of foreign judgements:
a. If the decision deals with claims on property or other real rights upon immovable located in Bulgaria.
b. If according to Bulgarian law the foreign court rendering the decision is not competent to deal with the case.
c. If the Bulgarian defendant has not been summoned by the hearing of the case.
d. If a Bulgarian court has already settled that dispute, or if there is an action brought in the Bulgarian court before the foreign judgement has become final. Similar provisions are also contained in the Czechoslovac Code of Civil Procedure. (1952)Google Scholar
33. Gsovskiĭ-V1. 1949, vol. II, p. 638Google Scholar; Gsovski, 1948, vol. I, p. 869Google Scholar; RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure sect. 255 note 2.
34. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov, 1959, p. 215–216Google Scholar; In a recent publication are mentioned only the first two grounds. See: Marysheva-Boguslavskiĭ Sovetskoe Gosud. i pravo 1961, no. 11, p. 102.Google Scholar
The same grounds of non-recognition of foreign judgements are provided in the agreements for legal aid between the Satellite countries, inter se. Among such agreements can be mentioned: Poland-Czechoslovakia of 21–1–1949, (published in “Dzennik Ustav”, 1949, no. 20, p. 133Google Scholar; Hungary-Czechoslovakia, 03 6, 1951Google Scholar, (published in Közlony, Magyar, 1951, no. 157)Google Scholar; Bulgaria-Hungary, 8–8–1953, (published in Magyar Közlony, 1954, no. 7) Bulgaria-Zcechoslovakia, 13–4–1954; (published in Izvestiia 1955, no. 15; DDR-Czechoslovakia of 11–9–1956, (published in Gesetzblatt der DDR, Teil 1, 1956, no. 99).
35. See Evseef, P. N., in: Problems of Private Intern. Law, M. 1960, pp. 202–206Google Scholar and the deviating opinions expressed by: Boguslavkiĭ-Rubanov, Soviet Yearbook of Intern. Law, 1958, p. 275.Google Scholar
Cf. Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soviet USSR 1958Google Scholar, no. 23 and Vedomosti no. 1 of 1959, text no. 25. Marysheva N. L, M. M. Boguslavkiĭ, Pravovoe Sotrudnichestvo Sotsialisticheskikh gosudartsv, Sovetskoe Gosud. i pravo, no. 11, 1961, pp. 92, 102–103.Google Scholar
36. With Denmark 1945; Austria 1955; with Norway 1925; Runamia 1947; with Bulgaria 1948; with the DDR 1957, etc.
37. With Sweden 1940. f.i.
38. Pereterskiĭ-Krylov 1959, p. 221Google Scholar; Lunts, 1956, p. 220–223.Google Scholar
39. Cf. Usenko, E., Torgovye dogovory mezhdu sotsialisticheskimi stranami. In: Vneshnaia torgovlia 1961, no. 5, p. 9.Google Scholar
40. Cf. Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 23–11–1960Google Scholar, no. 46, where the text is published in Russian. As to the ratification itself see Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, no. 32, of 15–8–1960.
41 Lebedev, S. N., O priznanii i privedenii v ispolvenie inostrannykh arbitrazhnykh resheniĭ, In: Informatsionnyi Sbornik. Morskoe Pravo i Praktika, no. 63, Leningrad 1961, p. 16–21.Google Scholar
On this Convention see also: A. A. Ishchenko, Novaia Konventisiia o priznanii i privedenii v ispolnenie inostrannykh arb. resheniĭ. In the periodical: Vneshniaia torgovlia 1958Google Scholar, no. 10.
42. Cf. Tractatenblad 1958, no. 145Google Scholar “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.”
43. Lebedev, S., O priznanii i privedenii v ispolnenie inostrannykh arbitrazhnykh reshenii, Sovetskaia Justitisiia no. 13, p. 19–20.Google Scholar
44. Domke, M., Arbitration of State-Trading relations. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1959, no. 2, p. 328.Google Scholar
45. Art. I, par. 3. On this point and other related matters see my article: The European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration and Soviet Law. In: Osteuropa-Recht, , 1963, no. 1, pp. 14–25.Google Scholar