Suchergebnisse

On 28th October 1976 an ex parte order was made in the High Court, Queen's Bench Division, under section 2 of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other jurisdictions) Act 1975, giving effect to letters rogatory issued out of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, at the instance of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westing- "house"). In the Richmond Court Westinghouse are defendants in a number of actions (civil proceedings) consolidated in that court, by utility companies producing electricity, alleging breaches of contract by Westinghouse for the supply of uranium and claiming very large sums in damages. Westinghouse put forward.(inter alia) a defence of commercial impracticability arising from an alleged uranium producers' cartel.

Rio Algom Corporation appeals from an order adjudging it, and its president , George R. Albino , to be in will ful and in excusable civil contempt of court for failing to comply with a discovery order of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. Rio Algom was ordered to pay into the registry of the court the sum of $10,000, per day, until such time as Rio Algom complied with the order. It was further provided that should Rio Algom fail to pay the ordered fine, the United States Marshal was authorized and directed to enter upon the property of Rio Algom at La Sal, Utah and seize "any and all property of Rio Algom of sufficient value to satisfy the above sums." Our study of the matter leads us to conclude that the trial court erred in holding Rio Algom in contempt and in imposing the severe sanction in connection therewith. We therefore reverse.

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Treaties — Relation to statute — Relevance of unimplemented treaty provision to exercise of discretion by Contracting State — The law of EnglandStates as international persons — In general — Sovereignty and independence — In matters of domestic jurisdiction — Attempt to extend United States grand jury's investigations extraterritorially — Letters rogatory — Whether to be implemented — Whether an infringement of sovereignty — Relevance of policy of the Government — The law of EnglandStates as international persons — In general — Sovereignty and — independence-Conclusiveness of statements of the Executive — Extraterritorial application of United States anti-trust legislation — Attempt to extend United States grand jury's investigations extraterritorially — Letters rogatory — Whether an infringement of sovereignty — Relevance of policy of the Government — The law of EnglandJurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Jurisdiction over foreigners — Extraterritorial jurisdiction of foreigners in respect of acts done abroad — Attempt to extend United States grand jury's investigations extraterritorially — Letters rogatory — Whether to be implemented — Whether an infringement of sovereignty — The law of EnglandTreaties — Conclusion and operation of — Operation and enforcement — Necessity for municipal legislation — Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1970 — Relation to Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 — Discretion under Convention to object to pre-trial discovery — Whether implemented in municipal legislation — Relevance to exercise of discretion — The law of England296Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — Extraterritorial application of United States anti-trust legislation — Letters rogatory — Whether to be implemented — Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 — Relation to international convention — Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1970 — General intention of — Article 23 — Discretion to object to pre-trial discovery — Whether implemented in municipal law — Relevance to exercise of discretion — Intervention of United States Department of Justice — Attempt to extend United States grand jury's investigations extraterritorially — Whether changing character of letters rogatory — Whether an infringement of sovereignty — Relevance of policy of the Government — Grounds for not implementing letters of request — Article 12(b) of the Convention — The law of England

States as international persons — In general — Sovereignty and independence — In matters of domestic jurisdiction — Criminal proceedings — Visits abroad by Italian judges in order to cross-examine defendants held in the United States and France — Whether a violation of rules on territorial jurisdiction — Requirement to respect sovereignty of other States and follow established procedure of submitting letters rogatory to competent foreign authorities — Exceptions admissible only if sanctioned by both international agreement and municipal law — The law of Italy222Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Over territory in general and persons and property situated therein — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — Criminal proceedings — Visits abroad by Italian judges in order to cross-examine defendants held in the United States and France — Whether a violation of rules on territorial jurisdiction — Requirement of respect for sovereignty of other States — Exceptions admissible only if sanctioned by both international agreement and municipal law — Requirement to follow established procedure and submit letters rogatory to competent foreign authorities — The law of Italy

Jurisdiction — Territorial limits of — Domestic agency of foreign bank — Order of Court to produce documents situate in foreign State — As to transactions outside demanding State — Foreign corporation in position of witness — Production of documents in violation of law of foreign State — Letters rogatory — The law of the United States of America.

The fundamental principles in civil procedure do not only serve as guiding principles for civil procedure in general, but are especially relevant in the taking of evidence process. The German Code of Civil Procedure lays down various rules in its part on the taking of evidence, which aim to specify the scope of the fundamental procedural principles as well as their limitations. This reports purposes to depict the taking of evidence process under German law by illustrating its interaction with said principles.