Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:22:21.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Immunity: Federal Republic of Germany*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

I. Seidl-Hohenveldern
Get access

Extract

International customary law on state immunity like all other international customary law is adopted into the domestic law of the Federal Republic of Germany in virtue of Article 25 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany: “The general rules of international law shall form part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and create rights and duties directly for the inhabitants of the federal territory”.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 10 , December 1979 , pp. 55 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

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. Partsch, K.J., “Die Anwendung des Völkerrechts im innerstaatlichen Recht” [The application of public international law in municipal law] 6 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (BerDGVR) (Karlsruhe 1964) pp. 13–155Google Scholar. See English text of Resolution adopted by a Study Group of the German Society of International law on the basis of this report, ibid., p. 167, and Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., “Transformation or Adoption of International law into Municipal law”, 12 ICLQ (1963) pp. 88–124 at p. 93 et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Peaslee, A.J., Constitutions of Nations, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (The Hague: Nijhoff 1956) p. 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Federal Constitutional Court, 13 December 1977, Philippine Embassy Bank Account Case, 46 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court] (BVerfGE) (1978) pp. 342–404 at p. 395Google Scholar, Riesenfeld, St.A., “Federal Republic of Germany Cases Notes”, 73 AJIL (1979) p. 305.Google Scholar

4. Convention of 18 April 1961, 500 UNTS p. 95.

5. Law of 27 January 1877, Reichsgesetzblatt 1877 p. 41 as last amended by Federal Law of 9 May 1975, Bundesgesetzblatt 1975 I p. 1077.

6. See supra n. 4.

7. Convention of 24 April 1963, 596 UNTS p. 261.

8. Law of 30 January 1877, Reichsgesetzblatt 1877 p. 83 as last amended by Federal Law of 12 September 1950, Bundesgesetzblatt 1950 p. 533.

9. Cohn, E.J., Manual of German Law, vol. 1, 2nd ed., (Leiden: Sijthoff 1971) p. 173.Google Scholar

10. W. Habscheid, “Die Immunität ausländischer Staaten nach deutschem Zivilprozessrecht” [The immunity of foreign states according to German procedural law] in Schaumann, W. and Habscheid, W., Die Immunität ausländischer Staaten nach Völkerrecht und deutschem Zivilprozessrecht [The immunity of foreign states according to public international and to German procedural law] 8 BerDGVR (1968) pp. 159–281, at p. 187.Google Scholar

11. Stein, F. and Jonas, M., Kommentar zur ZPO [Commentary to the Rules on Civil Procedure] Comments on Section 23 II 1, vol. 1, 19th ed., (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1975) p. 233.Google Scholar

12. 176 LNTS p. 200.

13. Menzel, E., Die Immunität der Staatsschiffe [The immunity of state-owned ships] (Hamburg: Deutscher Verein für Internationales Seerecht 1961) p. 28.Google Scholar

14. LG Bremen, 21 December 1959, “The Charkow”, Die Deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiet des Internationalen Privatrechts (IPRspr.) (1964–1965), No. 59a, at p. 198–199.

15. E.g., Böger, M., Die Immunität der Staatsschiffe [The immunity of state-owned ships] (Kiel: Inst. für Internationales Recht der Universität Kiel 1928) p. 182Google Scholar; Maiwald, S., Die Entwicklung zur staatlichen Handelsschiffahrt im Spiegel des Intemationalen Rechtes, [The development towards state shipping as reflected in public international law] (Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlags Gesellschaft 1946) p. 96Google Scholar; Steinert, K.-F., Die internationalrechtliche Stellung des Schiffes im fremden Küstenmeer im Frieden) [The public international law status of a ship in foreign territorial waters in time of peace] (Frankfurt/M.: Bockenheimer Bücherwarte 1970) p. 304.Google Scholar

16. District Court Bremen 15 June 1955, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) (1955) p. 1450Google Scholar, 22 ILR p. 233 at p. 234, concerning a floating US Army crane: “auxiliary state vessels are in principle to be treated like warships, provided that they are exclusively destined for public purposes”; and the decision of the Reichsgericht 16 May 1938, 157 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen (RGZ) p. 389Google Scholar, concerning a chartered vessel carrying coal exclusively for the navy of a foreign state.

17. S. Maiwald, op.cit., p. 93 and Dahm, G., Völkerrecht [Public International Law] (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1961) vol. 1 p. 244 n. 39.Google Scholar

18. Federal Constitutional Court, 30 April 1963, Claim against the Empire of Iran 16 BVerfGE p. 27, at p. 62, 45 ILR p. 57, at p. 80. See below, text after n. 36. Accord, Schaumann, W., “Die Immunität ausländischer Staaten nach Völkerrecht”Google Scholar [The immunity of foreign states according to public international law] in Schaumann, W. and Habscheid, W., 8 Ber. DGVR (1968) pp. 1–157 at pp. 112, 146 and 149 n. 72.Google Scholar

19. Treaty of 25 April 1958, BGBI 1959 II p. 222, 346 UNTS p. 71 extended by Protocol of 31 December 1960, BGBI 1961 II p. 1085. See also Frenzke, D., “Prozessuale Immunitäten der sowjetischen Handelsvertretungen nach den zwischenstaatlichen Verträgen” [Procedural immunities of Soviet Trade Delegations according to international agreements] 10 Osteuropa-Recht (1964) pp. 237–257.Google Scholar

20. Convention of 16 May 1972, 11 ILM (1972) p. 470.

21. Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., “Federal Republic of Germany” in Lauterpacht, E. and Collier, J.G. ed., Individual Rights and the State in Foreign Affairs. An International Compendium (New York: Praeger Publishers 1977) p. 258Google Scholar. See also German Federal Court, 25 February 1960, 32 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen (BGHZ) p. 76 at p. 88Google Scholar, and several other cases quoted by Tomuschat, Chr., “Deutsche Rechtsprechung in völkerrechtlichen Fragen 1958–1965” [German case law on public international law problems 1958–1965] in 28 ZaöRV (1968) pp. 48–147 at p. 77, No. 51.Google Scholar

22. W. Habscheid, loc.cit., pp. 179–180.

23. To this effect Darmstadt Court of Appeal, 20 December 1926, 56 Juristische Wochenschrift (1937) p. 2324Google Scholar; 3 AD (1925–26) p. 323.

24. 20 ZaöRV (1959–60) p. 684.

25. 13 ILM (1974) p. 218. Text according to the English translation provided by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

26. See supra n. 18.

27. Reichsgericht, 10 December 1921, The Ice King, 103 RGZ p. 275, 1 AD (1919–1922) p. 150.

28. See, e.g., infra n. 32 and the comments by Münch, F. “Die Immunität fremder Staaten in der deutschen Rechtsprechung bis zu den Beschlüssen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 30 Oktober 1962 und 30 April 1963” [The immunity of foreign states in German case law up to the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of 30 October 1962 and 30 April 1963) 24 ZaöRV (1964) pp. 265–278 at p. 237.Google Scholar

29. Accord, at least as prima facie proof, W. Schaumann, loc.cit., pp. 44 and 97.

30. Federal Court, 7 June 1955, 18 BGHZ p. 1 at p. 9, 22 ILR p. 17.

31. G. Dahm, op.cit., vol. 1 p. 236, W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 182.

32. Hamburg Restitution Court, 28 September 1951, 4 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift/Rechtsprechungzum Wiedergutmachungsrecht (NJW/RzW) (1953) p. 177.Google Scholar

33. See infra n. 60, 93 and 94.

34. Federal Constitutional Court, 30 October 1962, 15 BVerfGE p. 25 at p. 36.

35. W. Schaumann, loc.cit., p. 36. See also infra n. 51, 52, 59 and 60.

36. See supra n. 18.

37. 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at p. 61.

38. To this effect also, Federal Court (BGH) 7 June 1955, 18 BGHZ p. 1 at p. 9.

39. Landgericht (Court of Appeal) (LG) Kiel 19 March 1953, 20 ILR p. 178 at p. 179.

40. Ibid., p. 180.

41. LG Frankfurt, 2 December 1975, Nada Trust v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 21 Die Aktien-gesellschaft (AG) (1976) p. 47 at p. 48; 29 NJW (1976) p. 1045; 16 ILM (1977) p. 501.

42. Federal Constitutional Court, 30 April 1963, Claim against the Empire of Iran, 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at p. 63.

43. 21 AG (1976) at p. 47.

44. Higher Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) Frankfurt 30 June 1977, 23 Recht der Intemationalen Wirtschaft (RIW/AWD) (1977) p. 721, appeal pending.

45. 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at pp. 61–62.

46. LG Frankfurt 2 December 1975, 21 AG (1976) at p. 48; LG Frankfurt 25 August 1976, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) 27 August 1976, p. 13, p. 15 of the transcript.

47. LG Kiel 19 March 1953, 9 Juristenzeitung (JZ) (1954) p. 117, 20 ILR p. 178.Google Scholar

48. LG Bremen, 21 December 1959, “The Charkow”, IPRspr. (1964–65) Nr. 59 a and LG Bremen 8 February 1962, IPRspr. (1964–65) Nr. 59 b.

49. Landesarbeitsgericht (LAG), 15 May 1950, IPRspr. (1950–51) Nr. 21 at p. 60.

50. Actually, immunity should have been denied earlier, on account of the separate legal personality of the Company. See supra text at n. 29.

51. OLG Hamm, 14 April 1951, Restitution of Property (Republic of Italy) Case, 2 NJW/RzW (1951) p. 258, 18 ILR p. 221. See also supra text at n. 35.

52. Kammergericht (KG) Berlin, 14 January 1949, 3 Juristische Rundschau (JR) (1949) p. 118Google Scholar. See also supra text at n. 35.

53. OLG Munich, 19 December 1974, 28 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) (1974) p. 411.Google Scholar

54. OLG Koblenz, 10 October 1972, Entscheidungen der Oberlandesgerichte in Zivilachen (1975) Nr. 100 p. 379.Google Scholar

55. See supra n. 18.

56. OLG Hamburg, 11 November 1952, 28 MDR (1953) p. 109.

57. But see supra n. 50.

58. OLG Schleswig, 26 March 1957, 7 Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht (JIR) (1957) p. 400Google Scholar, 24 ILR p. 207.

59. Republic of Latvia Case, Restitution Chamber of Berlin, 3 October 1953, 20 ILR p. 180, 4 NJW/RzW (1953) p. 368, and Higher Berlin Court of Appeal 25 February 1955 22 ILR p. 230; Higher Berlin Court of Appeal, 1 March 1957, Japanese Embassy Case, 8 NJW/ RzW (1957) p. 185 at p. 186 and the decisions rendered by the (International) Supreme Restitution Court for Berlin on 10 July 1959, 10 NJW/RzW (1959), p. 526 et seq. Tietz v. Bulgaria, 54 AJIL (1960) p. 165, 28 ILR p. 369; Weinmann v. Latvia, 28 ILR p. 385; Bennet v. Hungary, 28 ILR p. 392, and Cassirer v. Japan, 28 ILR p. 396 and 54 AJIL p. 178 et seq.

60. Federal Court, BGH 31 January 1969, Yugoslav Military Mission in Berlin claim, 23 Wertpapier Mitteilungen (WM) (1969) p. 941, see also supra n. 33 and infra n. 93 and 94; Federal Court BGH, 26 September 1969, Mortgage on Hungarian Embassy Building claim, 23 WM (1969) p. 1348. See also infra n. 92.

61. 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at p. 31; 45 ILR p. 57 at p. 59.

62. 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at p. 64; 45 ILR p. 57 at p. 81.

63. 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at p. 61; 45 ILR p. 57 at p. 80.

64. Supra n. 41 and 46.

65. LG Frankfurt, 2 December 1975, 21 AG (1976) at p. 48.

66. See supra n. 60.

67. W. Schaumann, loc.cit., p. 34, W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 234.

68. See text supra after n. 26.

69. See supra n. 55–65.

70. See infra n. 78.

71. Federal Court BGH 5 May 1966, 45 BGHZ p. 237 at p. 245.

72. Federal Court BGH 10 January 1956, Joint Export-Import Agency Case, 19 BGHZ p. 341, 23 ILR p. 787.

73. In 1967 the Second Study Group established by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht [German Society of International Law] on the basis of the reports by W. Schaumann supra n. 18 and W. Habscheid supra n. 10 had adopted theses favouring the restriction of sovereign immunity of foreign states to acts which by their nature are to be considered as acta jure imperii. An English version of these theses appears in 8 Ber. DGVR (1968) pp. 297–310.

74. W. Schaumann, loc.cit., pp. 123–124.

75. 16 BVerfGE p. 27 at p. 63; 45 ILR p. 57 at p. 81.

76. Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., Völkerrecht [Public International Law] 3rd ed., (Cologne: Heymanns 1975) p. 260.Google Scholar

77. Federal Court BGH 23 October 1963, 40 BGHZ p. 197 at p. 203.

78. OLG Munich, 12 August 1975, 28 NJW (1975) p. 2144.

79. Federal Court BGH, 5 May 1966, 45 BGHZ p. 237 at p. 245.

80. Obiter, Federal Constitutional Court, 13 December 1977, Philippine Embassy Bank Account Case, 46 BVerfGE p. 342 at p. 402.

81. Ibid., at pp. 368 and 388. Accord, W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 251.

82. W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 258.

83. LG Stuttgart, 21 September 1971 IPRspr. (1971) Nr. 129, 10 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebsberaters (AWD) 1973 pp.104, 102Google Scholar Clunet (1975) p. 585. See text after n. 73.

84. W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 266.

85. LG Frankfurt, 2 December 1975, 21 AG (1976) p. 47 at p. 48 and LG 25 August 1976, FAZ 27 August 1976 p. 13.

86. Federal Constitutional Court, 13 December 1977, Philippine Embassy Bank Account Case, 46 BVerfGE p. 342 at p. 398. Accord W. Schaumann, loc.cit., p. 145.

87. See n. 83.

88. Accord, G. Dahm, op.cit., vol. 1 p. 239.

89. W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 261.

90. See n. 41. Such attachments are approved by W. Habscheid, loc.cit., p. 278.

91. LG Frankfurt, 25 August 1976, FAZ 27 August 1976 p. 13.

92. BGH 26 September 1969, 23 WM (1969) p. 1348. See supra n. 60.

93. BGH 31 January 1969, 23 WM (1969) p. 941. See supra n. 60.

94. Federal Constitutional Court, 30 October 1962, 15 BVerfGE p. 25 at pp. 42–43; 38 ILR p. 162 at pp. 169–170. See supra text at nn. 33–34.

95. LG Bremen, 21 December 1959, “The Charkow”, IPRspr. (1964–65) Nr. 59a at p. 198 and LG Bremen 8 February 1962, “The Charkow”, ibid., Nr. 59b at p. 200.

96. Federal Constitutional Court, 13 December 1977, Philippine Embassy Bank Account Case, 46 BVerfGE p. 342, pp. 353–354.

97. Ibid, at p. 345.

98. Ibid., at p. 394.

99. Ibid., at pp. 398–399.

100. Ibid., at pp. 399–400.

101. Ibid., at p. 401.

102. Ibid., at p. 402.

103. Ibid., at p. 393.

104. Supra text before n. 100.

105. Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., “Neue Entwicklungen im Recht der Staatenimmunität” [New Developments in the Law of State Immunity] in Sandiock, O. ed., Festschrift für G. Beitzke (West-Berlin: de Gruyter 1979) p. 1100.Google Scholar

106. Federal Constitutional Court, 13 December 1977, Philippine Embassy Bank Account Case, 46 BVerfGE p. 342 at pp. 393 and p. 402.

107. Ibid., p. 345. See supra text at n. 97.

108. Ibid., at p. 395.

109. See supra n. 41.

110. Note to LG Frankfurt 2 December 1975 (supra n. 41) in 21 AG (1976) pp. 50–51.

111. See supra text at n. 11.

112. FAZ 27 August 1976 p. 13.

113. Trendtex v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1976] 1 WLR 868.

114. See supra n. 11.

115. LG Frankfurt 2 December 1975, 21 AG (1976) at p. 47.

116. Ibid., at p. 48. Accord, W. Schaumann, loc.cit., pp. 86–88.

117. See supra text at n. 14.

118. See the present writer's report on Austria elsewhere in this volume.