13th, CASE CONCERNING THE FACTORY AT CHORZÓWTHE IV. of the proceedings in the various cases concerning the Chorzów factory. The Chorzow Factory Case (, Germany v Poland.) Principle: It is a general principle of law as well as International law, that any breach of agreement. T H E FA C T O R Y AT C H O R Z O W (G E R M A N Y v.P O L A N D) 13 Sept. P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17 TOPIC: Cases on Gener.
|Published (Last):||10 June 2006|
|PDF File Size:||8.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.76 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Share if you care: View translated passages only. Negulesco Dissenting Opinion by M.
Case Note on The Chorzow Factory ( Germany v Poland, 1928)
Leave a Reply Cancel reply. For this reason, damage sustained by any third person, and amongst others by the Reich Treasury, must be left out of account ; for the German Government has not asked the Court to take into account damage suffered by itself its Treasury. In the Case this submission is worded as follows: The machinery and equipment chkrzow to be in accordance with the patents and licences of the Company and the experience gained by it, and the Company undertook to manage the factory until March 31st,making use of all patents, licences, experience gained, innovations and improvements, as also of all supply and delivery contracts of which it had factroy benefit.
Expand All Collapse All.
Chorzow Factory Case by Kirstin dela Cruz on Prezi
Nyholm, Judge, being unable to concur in the result cohrzow at by the judgment, desires to add the remarks which follow hereafter.
Three fundamental questions arise: In regard to the Oberschlesische. Even if the Court had dealt with this question, it would only have dealt with it as with an incidental and preliminary point ; consequently, even if the Court had decided the point, its decision would not have the force of res judicata; a fortioriit is impossible to argue that because the Respondent did not raise this incidental and preliminary point, it was thereby debarred from ever raising it.
It is in fact a question of eliminating from the amount of this indemnity.
This right, which may be regarded as preponderating, is, from an economic standpoint, very closely akin to ownership, but it is not ownership ; and even from an economic point of view it is impossible to disregard the rights of the Treuhand. As guarantee for the sums due to the Reich under the contract, the Treuhand undertook to obtain for the Reich a lien on all the shares of the Oberschlesische. General Indexes Other documents. In the alternative, the Polish Government contends that these same circumstances at all events have the effect of essentially diminishing the extent of the damage to be taken into account in so far as the said Company is concerned.
For this purpose, a special section of the Company was to be formed which was, to a certain extent, to be subject to the supervision of the Reich, which had the right to a share of the profits resulting from the working of the factory during each financial year. What are reading intentions? Which is the fifth reasoning with adequate logic  Where the indemnity amount is concerned the court give its reasoning, is the sixth consistent point.
How do I set a reading intention To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: On the other hand, in the written Reply, whilst the submission of the Application is repeated, the following alternative is added:. Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory.
This judgment was the source of developments tending in two different directions. Your reading intentions are also stored in your profile for future reference. Ehrlich Observations by M.
These rights should therefore be eliminated from the rights of the Oberschlesische, which, if this were done, would amount simply to a nuium jus domini. Accordingly, it is necessary, before approaching the point of law raised by the German Application of February 8th,briefly to trace out the relevant facts from this particular standpoint.
But there is nothing—either in the terms of Article 23 or in the relation between this provision and certain others of a jurisdictional character included in the Geneva Convention —which tends to show that the jurisdiction established by Article 23 extends to reparation other than that due by one of the contracting Parties to the other in consequence of an infraction of Articles 6 to 22duly recognized as such by the Court.
Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this thirteenth day of September nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, in three copies, one of which is to be placed in the archives of the Court, and the others to be forwarded to the Agents of the applicant and respondent Parties respectively.
A 4 in its Counter-Case:. The nonconformity of Poland’s attitude in respect of the two Companies with Article 6 and the following articles of the Fachory Convention is established by No.
At first it had justified its jurisdiction which was under question by the Poland as raised in respect of res judicata  showing Article 23 of Geneva Convention, but the court justified its jurisdiction by referring Article 36 of the Statute of the Court. The objection based on this article must therefore also be overruled. In the vhorzow affair such a case might have arisen, owing to the situation of Germany as pledgee ; no such claim has however been put forward in the proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court has stated that this article does not involve a prohibition of alienation, and that the rights reserved to the Allied and Associated Powers in the article are exercised through the Reparation Commission. It bring the general concept of law that every violation of an engagement involves an obligation reparation.
The German Government has not facrory this suit as representative of the individuals who have suffered injury, but it may estimate the damage for which it claims reparation on its own behalf, according to the measure provided by the losses suffered by the companies whose case it has taken up.
Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear ; the award, if need be, of damages for loss sustained which Would not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it—such are the principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act contrary to international law.
The position of the Applicant must be regarded as one of mandatory. If Poland is to succeed in her claim based on Articleit must be before some other tribunal and not this Court. No damage of such a nature has been alleged as regards the Oberschlesische, and it seems hardly conceivable that such damage should exist, for the whole activity of the Oberschlesische was concentrated in the undertaking.
Under the contract, the whole of the factory for the production of nitrated lime, with the accessory installations, situated at Chorzow, was ceded by the Reich to the Oberschlesische at the price of approximately no million marks,—which price fxctory calculated according to chodzow data indicated in the contract itself,—the Treuhand taking over, factoey the place of the Oberschlesische, as sole and independent debtor, all the obligations imposed chorzzow the contract upon the latter in regard to the Reich, and obtaining in consideration thereof, without payment, shares of the Oberschlesische—to the nominal value of , marks.
But cwse decision has already been significantly influenced the jurisprudence of International law and its impact can be seen in various cases such i. It is then a question of applying to a particular case the general rules regarding payment, and the Court’s jurisdiction arises quite naturally out of its jurisdiction to award monetary compensation.
It must be remembered that the Treuhand was a limited liability company whose obligations would not therefore involve obligations on the part of the companies which formed it.