Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 632.

IO92

the Norwegian Government and persons whose property at the time of the seizure was within the territorial jurisdiction of the King of Norway and sub protectione regis, this would place his Government in the invidious position of leaving them without any redress at aU for a seizure which occurrednotwithstanding their claim to the protection of the Norwegian Crown.... Their Lordships think that this argument is well founded and that.... the Norwegian Government ought to be protected. They are therefore entitled to costs of the voyage to Norway paid and born by them . . . ."

La cour d'appel a, toutefois, rejeté les autres réclamations du Gouvernement de Norvège, savoir celles tendant a ce que lui f ussent remis les profits que la Couronne anglaise avait tirés de 1'usage du navire allemand réquisitionné, depuis la capture j usqu 'a la relache, et a ce qu'ü ne fut pas grevé des frais et débours que le „Marshal" avait été obligé de prendre a sa charge pour 1'entretien du navne [voir le jugement].

Dans 1'affaire des Pellworm and other vessels (1093; appel: 1396), les cours anglaises ont également débouté le gouvernement neutre (des Pays-Bas) de sa demande en dommages-intérêts pom cause de violation (non intentionnelle, a leur avis) de la mer littorale néerlandaise.

§ 633. Quelques mois avant 1'arrêt concernant le Düsseldorf (1350a), la com de première instance avait encore rejeté la demande du Gouvernement de Christiania, a propos d'une autre captme effectuée dans la mer territoriale de Norvège, tendant a ce que la Couronne anglaise fut condamnée a restituer au Gouvernement norvégien la valeur d'un navbe capturé qui, après la captme, avait été légalement coulé par le bêtiment capteur pour cause de mauvais temps [comp. § 738].

Valeria (1310a): „At the hearing of the cause on July 17,1919, upon the question of the locality of the capture, the President (Lord Sterndale) found that the place of capture was within the territorial waters of • Norway, but found, further, that the violation of Norwegian neutrahty was unintentional.... Upon these findings judgment is claimed on behalf of the Norwegian Government for the value of the Valeria and her cargo and for damages and costs .... The question now, the release of the Valeria being impossible, is whether there is a rule of international law enforceable in this Court which requires that restitution of her value shall be made .... [suivent quelques citations d'auteurs et de décisions antérieures]..... The present claim for restitution (in value) was founded rather upon an assumed analogy to cases of tortious possession under English common law than upon any definite rule or precedent under international law. The case of the captor was likened to that of a man who by mistake possesses himself wrongfully of a chattel not his own and loses it. . . . The analogy seems to me to fail in this — that the person

Sluiten