Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T20:21:08.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems of International Law in French Jurisprudence 1939–1941

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Martin Domke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent European events have brought with them some interesting questions of international law which have been discussed in French courts, especially during the war. In the following pages some of these decisions will be taken up regarding:

  1. I. Russian expropriation measures in Eastern Poland, September, 1939.

  2. II. Claims against owners of goods expropriated by the Spanish Government.

  3. III. The nationality of corporations.

  4. IV. The sequestration of enemy property.

  5. V. Art. 17 of the Armistice Convention between France and Germany (prohibition of the transfer of securities from the occupied zone).

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 1942 , pp. 24 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1942

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 Representation commerciale de V Union des Ripvbliques Socialistes et Soviitiques (U.R.S.S.) c. SociiU Frangaise IndustrieUe et Commerciale des Pitroles ﹛Groupe Malopolska),Trib. civ. Seine, Jan. 12, 1940, Dalloz Hebd. 1940, 68; Gaz. Pal. 1940, I, 44; Gaz. Trib. No. 14, 29 fevrier 1940; Droit financier, 1940, 56.

2 This question was discussed, following the Mexican oil expropriation, before different European courts, e.g. “Petroservice” S. A. pour le Commerce el le Transport du Pttrole, Cridit Minier Franco-Roumain S. A. Pitroliferec. Compania Mexicana de Petrdho “El Aguila,“ Hof s’-Gravenhage, Dec. 4, 1939, Ned. Jur. 1940, n. 27, p. 43; Banque el SociUi de PUrolec Compania Mexicana de Petrdho “El Aguila,”Trib. civ. Havre, Oct. 18, 1939, quoted 41. Bull. Inst. Jur. Int. (1939), p. 65, n. 10 805a. Compare Eastern States Petroleum Co. Inc. v.Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 28 F. Supp. 279 (C.C.S.D. 1939), with note in 52 Harv. L. Rev. (1939), p. 1368.

3 Sociiu France-Exportsc. Representation commerciale de VU.R.S.S.,Cour de Cassation, Req., Feb. 19, 1929, Dalloz Hebd. 1929,1, 73; 24 Rev. dr. int. (1929), 266. There are, however, still doubts as to the extension of this rule to immunity from execution. See:

(a) Socie’le’ commerciale, industrielle et financiere pour la Russie el les pays limitrophes (Socifros)c. U.R.S.S., Cour d’appel, Aix-en-Provence, Nov. 23, 1938, Dalloz Pe. 1939, II, 65; 34 Rev. crit. dr. int. (1939), 306;

(b) Oficina del Aceitec. Domenech,Cour d’appel, Aix-en-Provence, Dec. 9, 1938, Dalloz Pev. 1939, II, 70; 66 Jour. dr. int. (1939), 596;

(c) Etat Espagnol et Compania Arrendataria del Monopolios de Petrdleosc. Bauer Marchal et Cie.,Trib. comm., Marseille, April 3, 1939, 116 Jour. Jurispr. Comm. et Mar. (1939), 186; 52 Bull. Inst. Jur. Int. (1940), p. 82, n. 11 035.

(d) Agelc. Etat Francois et Stat Espagnol,Trib. civ. Perpignan, April 7, 1939, Juris- Classeurs, 1939, Per. 1209; 6 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. prive” (1939), 453.

For a further discussion see Lemonon, Rapport (du $4wai 1988 a Vlnslitut de droit international) sur VimmuniU de juridiction et d’execution forcie des Etats Strangers,6 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. prive” (1939), p. 552; Hackworth, Digest of International Law,Vol. 2 (1941), § 169, p. 393; note, “Immunity from Suit of Foreign Instrumentalities and Obligations,” 50 Yale L. J. (1941), p. 1088; Wright, “International Law and the Totalitarian States,” 35 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. (1941), pp. 738, 740; Fox, “Competence of Courts in regard to Non-Sovereign Acts of Foreign States,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 632.

4 Chaliapinec. Representation commerciale de I’U.R.S.S.,Cour d’appel, Paris, July 28, 1932, Dalloz Pfr. 1934, II, 139; 28 Rev. dr. int. (1933), 671, aff’d by Cour de Cassation, Req., Dec. 15, 1936, Dalloz Per. 1937, I, 63; 32 Rev. crit. dr. int. (1937), 710; 4 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. prive” (1937), 568. In this case the Commercial Representation of the Soviet Union was held responsible for having introduced and sold in France Chaliapine’s autobiography printed in Russia without the author’s consent. See note, Ch. D. V., “Le statut de la representation commerciale de I’U.R.S.S. en France,” 21 Rev. dr. int. et 16g. comp. (1941), 212.

5 “Thus profitting, without compensation, from the property of others which the Russian commercial organizations took possession of momentarily, they have at least committed a quasi-tort involving their pecuniary responsibility.“ Invoking French public policy, JeUinekc. Lioy,Trib. com., Paris, Jan. 18, 1940, Gaz. Pal. 1940, I, 188, upheld a claim against a French debtor presented by the former owners of a Czech firm taken over by a commissioner appointed by the German authorities. The court pointed out: “It is indisputable that among the principles doing honor to French law there are, on one side, the prohibition of proceeding to any expropriation except in the public interest and under condition of an adequate and previous compensation, and, on the other side, the recognition of the equality of the rights of citizens without any discrimination of origin, race and religion.” Some months later, this French public policy was fundamentally changed by new legislation introduced by the decree of Oct. 3, 1940, portant statut des juifs (Journ. Off., Oct. 18,1940, p. 5323). See Perreau, “Le nouveau statut des juifs en France,“ Juris-Classeurs P6r. fitudes, 216, 15 Semaine Juridique (1941), No. 37.

6 Cour d’appel, Paris, Feb. 12, 1941, Gaz. Pal. 1941,1, 139.

7 Both judgments do not make clear if Russia asserted a title to the oil wells or merely the right of a military occupant to use them during the occupation. The judgments characterize the seizure by the term “apprehension.“

8 L’Ultat Russec. Bourgeois is qual. d’administrateur de la SociMi en, navigation russe dite “La Ropit,”Cour de Cassation, Req., March 5,1928, Dalloz Per. 1928,1,81; 24 Rev. dr. int. (1929), 298. Compare Borchard, “Confiscation: Extraterritorial and Domestic,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 31 (1937), pp. 675, 677.

9 S. A. Potasas Ibiricasc. Nathan Bhch,Cour de Cassation, Civ., March 14, 1939, Dalloz Hebd., 1939, 257; Gaz. Pal. 1939,1, 726; 66 Journ. dr. int. (1939), 615; 34 Rev. crit. dr. int. (1939), 280; 6 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. prive” (1939), 163.

10 As to the question of an “adequate, effective and prompt payment for the properties seized,” see the note of Secretary Hull to the Mexican Government of Aug. 22, 1938 (this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 32 (1938), p. 191); the articles of C. C. Hyde: “Confiscatory Expropriation,“ this JOURNAL, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 759, and “Compensation for Expropriation,“ loc. cit.,Vol. 33 (1939), p. 108; Eagleton, “International Law and Public Order,” loc. cit., Vol. 33 (1939), p. 545; the address of Professor Borchard and discussion following, Proceedings of American Society of International Law, 1939, p. 51; Herz, “Expropriation of Foreign Property,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 34 (1940), pp. 242, 255.

11 As to movables, the lex rei sitaerule was definitely established in France in Kanioor de Maasc. Bez,Cour de Cassation, Req., March 24, 1933, Dalloz Hebd. 1933, 378.

12 See supra,note 2.

13 If the potash had been considered simply as stolen goods, this would be the solution under Art. 2280, See. 1, French Civil Code, which provides that if the actual possessor of stolen goods bought it in a market or from a merchant selling goods of the same kind, the original owner has no right to ask for restitution unless he reimburses the possessor for the price he paid.

14 Volatron el Soc. a resp. Urn. Centre d’expension commercial intemationalec. Moulin es qualiU d’administrates judiciaire de la SocitU Potasas Ibiricas,Cour d’appel, Aix-en-Provence, March 25, 1939, Dalloz Hebd. 1939, 329.

15 Moulin es qual.c. Volatron,Trib. comm., Marseille, May 25, 1937, Sirey, 1938, II, 105; 33 Rev. crit. dr. int. (1938), 71; 64 Journ. dr. int. prive (1937), 535; 6 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. prive (1939), 457.

16 The administrative center criterion prevails over the exploitation center criterion since the decision of the Cour de Cassation, Civ., June 20, 1870, Dalloz Per. 1870, I, 416. It was recognized even in the decisions concerning war damages which discarded it in this special field: Soc. Rozendael,Cour de Cassation, Civ., July 25, 1933, Dalloz Per. 1936, I, 121; 29 Rev. crit. dr. int. (1934), 109; Soc. Oschwald& Cie,Cour de Cassation, Civ., May 29, 1937, Dalloz Per. 1937, I, 64; 4 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. (1937), 603.

17 A recent French act (loi relative aux socites anooymes)of Nov. 16, 1940 (Journ. Off., Nov. 26, 1940, p. 5828, Rectificatif Journ. Off., Nov. 27, 1940, p. 5846), follows the “siege social” theory by expressly providing (Art. 5, par. 6) for its application to corporations hav­ ing their administrative center in France but their exploitation in other countries. These questions are set out in the writer’s article “Le probleme de la na.tionalite des societes avant et apres la legislation et Ia jurisprudence fran93ise de guerre de 1939-1940,’’ 8 Nouv. Rev. dr. int. prive (1941), Nos. 1-2. 17 Farnsworth, The Residence and DomiC’il of Corporations(1939), pp. 42, 255.

18 The leading case is Societe franoo-suisse Conserves de Lenzbourg,Cour de Cassation, Reg., July 20, 1915, Dalloz Per.1916, I, 44;Sirey, 1916, I, 148;42Journ. dr. int. (1915), 1164. The control theory was referred to in the Peace Treaties of Versailles, Art. 297b; St. Germain, Art. 249; Trianon, Art. 232. See supra,note 16 and, for further discussion: Garner, Inter­ national Law and the World War(1920), Vol. 1, § 152, p. 223;0ppenheim, Internatiçnal Law,Vol. 2 (6th ed. by Lauterpacht, 1940), § 88a, p. 222; Gathings, lnternatioo.al Law and American Treatment of Alien Enemy Propert y(1940), 48.

19 Comp. Niboyet, Traite de droit international prive fran is,Vol. II (1938), No. 730. See also Maury, “Nationalite et conditions des etrangers,” 58 Rev. crit. legisl. et jurispr. (1938), 103; Chauveau, “Les abus de la notion de personnalite morale des societes,” 1Rev. gen. dr. comm. (1938), 397; Sava.tier, “La condition, en droit international prive, des per­ sonnes morales dans les divers decrets-lois fran93is de 1939,” 34 Rev. crit. dr. int. (1939), 418.

20 Lancoc. Soc. Singer,Cour d’.appel, Rennes, June 16, 1930, Dalloz Per. 1931, II, 9; 58 Journ. dr. int. (1931), 1099; Soc. Remington Typewriter,Cour de Cassation, Req., May 12, 1931, Dalloz Per. 1936, I, 121; 27 Rev. dr. int. (1932), 129.

21 Trading with the Enemy Act of Sept. 1, 1939 (Decret-loi relatif aux interdictions et restric­ tions des rapports avec les ennemis et les personnes se trouvant sur le territoire ennemi ou occupe par l’ennemi,Journ. Off. Sept. 4, 1939, p. 11087); executory decree of the same day (ibid., p. 11089), Art. 1, Sec. 2; and decree concerning the declaration and sequestration of enemy­ owned property of the same day (decret-loi concernant la declaration et mise sous sequestre des biens appartenantd des ennemis, ibid.,p. 11091), Art. 2, Sec. 2.

For the recent development of this question in English war legislation-Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939 (2 & 3 Geo. VI, Ch. 89), Sec. 2-see Parry, “The Trading with the Enemy Act and the Definition of an Enemy,” 4 Mod. L. Rev. (1941), 161, 165. As to German war legislation-decree on the Administration of Enemy Property (Verordnung iiber die Be­ handlung feindlichen Vermogens),Jan. 15, 1940 (Reichsgesetzblatt,I, 191), and executory ordinance (Ausfiihrungsverordnung )June 20, 1940 (Deutscher Reichsanzeiger,Nr. 144)­ see the articles by Mohring, 10 Deutsches Recht (1940), A 1607, and 7 Zeitschrift der Aka­ demie fiir deutsches Recht (1940), 125; Hefermehl, ibid.,p. 239; Krieger, 39 Bank-Archiv (1940), 93. The property owned by citizens of enemy countries as well as by persons and corporations “having their residence or normal place of abode in the territory of an enemy country” is administered by a custodian, instituted by the decree relating to custodianship in absentia (Verordnung iiber die Abwesenheitspflegschaft ),Oct. 11, 1939 (ReichsgB8etzblatt,I, 2026), with three executory ordinances Oct. 18, 1939 (2056), Jan. 22, 1940 (232), and May 30, 1940 (821), translation in “German Decrees Concerning Curatorship in Absence for enemy­ owned property,” 3 Comparative Law Series (1940), 385.

22 Etablissements Villac. Cave Cooperative Vinicole de Rauzan,Cour de Cassation, Req., Jan. 9, 1940, Juris-Classeurs, 1940, Per. 1473; Gaz. Trib. No. 25; Gaz. Pal. 1940, I, 225.

23 Soc. Normande de Chalutiersd Moteursc. Administration des Douanes,Trib. civ., Diepp.e, March 5, 1941, Gaz. Pal. 1941, I, 368.

24 This article runs as follows: “No vessel is considered French nor has the rights of French vessels if it isnot half owned by Frenchmen.“

25 Decret reglant les rapports entre bailleurs et locataires en temps de guerre,Sept. 26, 1939 (.Journ. Off., Oct. 5, 1939, p. 12024), amended by decree of June 1, 1940 (Journ. Off., June 2, 1940, p. 4136).

26 Thus, the benefits of the decree were denied to a Belgian corporation: Compagnie Inter­ nationale des Wagons-Litsc. Societe des H6tels Reunis,Cour d’appel, Paris, Oct. 29, 1940, Gaz. Pal. 1940, II, 121; and to a Belgian national living in Paris who had no possibility of joining the Belgian army: Trib. civ. Seine, Nov. 14, 1940, Dalloz Analytique Hebdomadaire, 1941, Jurisprudence, p. 60; and to a Russian refugee without nationality invoking in vain the Geneva Convention of Oct. 28, 1933, granting these refugees assimilation to the nationals of the country of residence: Gilonc. Chmoulowsky,Cour d’appel, Paris, Nov. 18, 1940, Dalloz An. 1941, 46; and to a foreigner engaged in a “prestataires” unit (labor corps), Trib. civ. Seine, Dec. 2, 1940, Dalloz An. 1941, 63.

27 Trib. civ. Seine, Jan. 15, 1941, Juris-Classeurs, 1941, P6r. 1632; Gaz. Pal. 1941, I, 236.

28 Soc. Universal Filmc. Soc. Dubost,Trib. civ. Lille, Feb. 8, 1941, Sirey, 1941, II, 21; Gaz. Pal. 1941, I, 236. ·

29 Trib. civ. Seine, Nov. 16, 1939, 23 Revue des Loyers (1940), 215, admitted a claim of a French company to the benefits of the decree, although the director was an American citizen, but the manager was a Frenchman. Likewise the court referred to the “sillge social” cri­ terion in a case decided Feb. 13, 1941, Gaz. Pal. June 1-3, 1941, nos. 152-4, p. 3, footnote, concerning a limited company, half the shares of which belonged to a Swiss national. However, a decision of April 7, 1941, ibid,p. 2, proceeded anew on the basis of the control theory and required evidence as to the nationality of the company’s shareholders and directors.

30 For a discussion of cases concerning the nationality of corporations in this country, see Norem, “Determination of Enemy Character of Corporations,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 310; Woolsey, “Litigation of the Sabotage Claims against Germany,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 35 (1941), pp. 282, 299; Gathings, op. cit.,p. 60. As to an administrative interpretation of this question, see note, “Foreign Funds’ Control Through Presidential Freezing Orders,” 51 Col. Law Rev. (1941), pp. 1039, 1045; Harris and Joseph, Present Problems Concerning Foreign Funds Control(1941), 10; Thiesing, Control of Foreign-Owned Property in the United States(1941), 16; Davis, “Federal Freezing Orders-a Transition Period,” N. Y. L. J., Sept. 26, 1941, col. 766; cf.Kuhn, “Foreign Funds Control and Foreign­ Owned Property,’’ this JOURNAL, Vol. 35 (1941), 651, ibid.,Supp., 214.

31 The same problem came up with respect to the Act of June 30, 1926, concerning “proprieM commerciale.” The courts held that only a disposition in a treaty expressly providing for that question prevails over the municipal law in accordance with the rule that it must be construed in case of doubt as not confilcting with the state’s international obliga­ tions. This view was adopted in Zumkeller(a Swiss national) c. Florence et Peillon,Cour de Cassa.tion, Civ., Feb. 4, 1936, Dalloz Hebd. 1936, 145, and Grigorakis(a Greek national) c. Montes,Cour de Cassation, Civ., Feb. 3, 1941, Dalloz An. 1941, 100.

32 The decrees (supra,n. 21) were repealed after the Armistice by a decree of July 28, 1940, Journ. Off., July 29, 1940, p. 4590. Already before this date, June 21, 1940, the German military authorities of the Paris region had formally rescinded all measures formerly taken by French authorities “contre les biens, droits et interts des ressortissants allemands dans le territoire sous les ordres du Militii.rbefehlshaber Paris” (Journ. Off. des ordonnances du Gouverneur militaire de la region de Paris,June 21, 1940); see also the application decree of July 12, 1940, Journ. Off. des ordonnances,July 12, 1940, both in Legulation de l’ocr:upation (published by Gazette du Palaiain Paris), Vol. 1 (1940), pp. 33, 51.

33 S. A. Les Parfums Tosca,Trib. civ. Seine, Nov. 16, 1939, Dalloz Hebd., 1940, 11; Gaz. Pal. 1939, II, 306;quoted in C. C. H. War Law Series, Foreign Supplement, 66,035.

34 The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published several blacklists of individuals and corporations resident in neutral countries (Journ. Off., Sept. 4, 1939, p. 11093) which are deemed to be under German influence and therefore to be treated as enemies (LU;t,e otficielle des maisons considerees comme ennemis ou comme prenant vis-d-vis de l’ennemi k role de personnes interposees et residant dans les pays neutres).

35 Soc. Somatex,Trib. civ. Seine, Nov. 3, 1939, Dalloz Hebd., 1940, 22; Gaz. Pal. 1939, II, 338.

36 Soc. Le Zenith,Trib. civ. Seine, Jan. 3, 1940, Dalloz Hebd., 1940, 35; Gaz. Pal. 1940, I, 78.

37 Spielman, Herman et Spielman, Ernst,Trib. civ. Seine, March 7, 1940, Gaz. Pal. 1940, I, 370.

38 See this JOURNAL, Vol. 34 (1940), Supp., p. 173. The armistice convention is written in German (text in: 24 Zeitschrift fiir Volkerrecht (1940), p. 321); French translations in different terms were published by a few newspapers in June, 1940. The French Govern­ ment did not publish the text. Moreover, difficulties of translation of German decrees into French were probably the reason for an ordinance issued some months after the occu­ pation, Oct. 2, 1940, providing in the only existing article that for the application of ordi­ nances and regulations issued by the services of the military administration in France, the German text will be the official one (“ne fera foi que le texte allemand“). Ordonnance des autorites militaires allemandes concernant la valeur legale du texte allemand des ordon­ nances et arr8tes emis par l’administration militaire (Journ. Off. des ordonnances du Gouver­ neur militaire pour les territoires français occupes,Oct. 17, 1940; Legislation de l’occupation,Vol. II ﹛1940), p. 38).

39 By French-German agreements of May 7, 1941 (see New York Times, May 8, 1941, p. 3, col. 1), the transfer of goods, cash and securities from the occupied to the non-occupied zone was authorized, with some qualifications, but no abrogation of the regulation insti­ tuted by Art. 17 of the Armistice Convention was ever realized.

40 Ordonnance des autorites militaires allemandes concernant l’exportation et l’importation pour les territoires occupes des Pays-Bas, de la Belgique, du Luxembourg et de la Franceof May 23, 1940 (Journ. Off. des ordonnances du Gouverneur militaire pour les territoires français occupes,July 4, 1940) and Ordonnance des autorites milit,aires allemandes relative a l’etablisse­ ment d’un office de surveillance des banquessect (Bankenaufsichtsa7nt,office for control of banks) dans le territoire français occupeof July 22, 1940 (ioid.,July 26, 1940), both in Legislation de l’occupation,Vol. 1 (1940), pp. 19, 76.

41 Blochc. Crblit Lyonnais,Trib. civ. Pau, Sept. 21, 1940, concerning securities deposited with the agency at Orlt’ians and transferred to Pau, Juris-Classeurs, 1940, Per. 1544; Tri­ cotages M ecaniques Alsaciensc. Credit Commercial de France,Trib. civ. Limoges, Sept. 27, 1940, concerning securities deposited with the agency of Mulhouse, Juris-Classeurs, 1940, Per. 1561; Soc. des Tubesc. Soc. Generale Alsacienne de Banque,Cour d’appel, Limoges, Nov. 11, 1940, concerning a current account with the agency at Haguenau, Juris-Classeurs,· 1940, Per. 1561; Ste. Heimendingerc. Crblit lndustriel d’Alsace et de Lorraine, Societe Levy Filsc. same, Cour d’appel, Lyon, March 26, 1941, Rec. des Sommaires de la Jurisprudence Frarn;aise, 1941, Nos. 406/7.

In the same sense, in Navire Tibore,Cour de Cassation, Civ., Dec. 18, 1939, Gaz. Pal. 1940, I, 131; 18 Rev. dr. marit. comp., Supp. (1940), 35, rejected a claim for compensation of a Hungarian ship-owner whose ship had been commandeered by the French Government in 1914, holding itself incompetent to interpret Art. 2 of Hague Convention VI of Oct. 18, 1907, relative to the status of enemy-merchant ships upon the outbreak of hostilities. See Oppenheim, op. cit.,p. 266; Colombos, Treatise on the Law of Prize(2nd ed. 1940), p. 122.

42 Les Fi’ls de M me. Veuve Samuelc. Soc. Generale Alsacienne de Banque,Cour d’appel, Limoges, Nov. 11, 1940, Juris-Classeurs, 1940, Per. 1561.

43 Ebsteinc. Banque Rurale de Strasbourg,Cour d’appel, Limoges, Dec. 16, 1940, Juris­ Classeurs, 1940, Per. 1584; 23 Repertoire Commaille (1941), No. 15, p. 231.

44 This question of the lex rei sitaeis of wide importance; see Sinderc. Menter, Kranen et Spruyt,Cour d’appel, Paris, Nov. 18, 1927, Dalloz Hebd. 1928, 91, holding that an assign­ ment made in Turkey between Belgians has no effect against the debtor domiciled in France unless the requirements of French law are fulfilled. In Cie. Franise de Navigation Cyprien­ Fabrec. Banque Privee,Cour de Cassation, Civ., May 12, 1931, Dalloz Per. 1933, I, 60, held that an attachment in New York ought not be scrutinized by a French court regardless of the French nationality and domicile of both parties, each state being sovereign in its own territory. Inthe same sense Ste. d’assurances La Union et le Phenix espagnolc. S. A. John Cockeri’ll et Vacher,Cour de Cassation, Req., July 4, 1933, Dalloz Per. 1934, I, 10, 13; 12 Rev. dr. mar. comp., Supp. (1934), p. 2, granted the creditor of a nationalized Russian corporation (Ste. russe des Transpqrts)the right to attach a debt owed to it by a debtor domi· ciled in France. For a discussion of this question in American law, compare note, “Extra­ territorial Effect of Foreign Decrees and Seizures,” 88 U. of Pa. L. Rev. (1940), 983.

45 See decree of April 24, 1940, Arts. 3, 4, 5 (Journ. Off., May 2, 1940, p. 3206), as amended May 20, 1940 (Journ. Off., May 21, 1940), translation in C. C. H. War Law Series, Foreign Supplement, 67, 101-67, 103, with the regulation of April 30, 1940, regarding transactions prohibited and authorized, Art. 1, par. 5 (Journ. Off., May 2, 1940, p. 3212), as amended May 27, 1940 (Journ. Off., May 28, 1940), and Oct. 10, 1940 (Journ. Off., Oct. 24, 1940), translation ibid.,67618. For further details see the writer’s article cited in note 16.

46 46 For this reason, the above-mentioned judgments concerning securities deposits (n. 41) are criticized by Maupas “L’article 17 de la convention franco-allemande d’armistice,” 23 Repertoire Commaille (1941), I, 25. The author relies on an (unpublished) decision of the Trib. civ. Perigueux, Dec. 24, 1940, where Art. 17 of the Armistice Convention is held inapplicable not only to an account “dep6t-titres,” but also to an account “dep6t-espooes” maintained by the coupons detached from the deposited securities.