Re M and O

JurisdictionSuiza
CourtCourt of Cassation (Switzerland)
Docket NumberCase No. 42
Switzerland, Obergericht (Court of Appeal) of the Canton of Zürich.
Case No. 42
In re M. & O.

Treaties — Effect upon Third Parties — Provisions of the Treaty of Versailles as to the Continuance of Certain International Conventions — Article 287 of the Treaty — Effect upon Switzerland.

State Succession — International Conventions — Dismemberment — Switzerland and Article 287 of the Treaty of Versailles.

As to the existence of Poland, contrast Republic v. Felsenstadt, Case No. 16.—[Ed.]

The Facts.—The President of the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zürich ordered the firm M. & O., of Poland, who had started an action, to give security for costs on the ground that the firm was established (domiziliert) in a country which was not a party to the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The firm appealed, and relied upon Article 287 of the Treaty of Versailles, which laid down that the contracting parties should apply, as between themselves, the provisions of the Hague Convention.

Held: That the appeal failed. (a) Poland had not become a party to the Hague Convention by virtue of the above provision of the Treaty of Versailles. Poland was not represented at the Fourth Conference concerning private international law. According to Article 27 of the Convention she cannot by unilateral declaration become a party to the Convention, unless she has been admitted to it by a new international agreement. Such an admission cannot, however, be made by the Peace Treaty, to which Switzerland is not a party.

(b) The position would be different only if Poland could be regarded according to the rules of...

Pour continuer la lecture

SOLLICITEZ VOTRE ESSAI