The Approach of German Courts towards the Sanctions with Foreign Origin in Contractual Disputes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Lawpol, UT, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty member, School of International relations

10.52547/jlr.2023.228002.2257

Abstract

The increase in sanctions during the last two decades has created numerous legal issues in contractual disputes, especially in national courts. It is clear that national courts of the sanctioning country, take into account the sanctions enacted by the foreign government, and in case the sanctions conflict with the rights and obligations of dispute parties, they adjust the final verdict in compliance with their internal sanctions laws. Nevertheless, the question is whether a court can, in the process of describing, interpreting, and applying the legal and contractual obligations of the litigants, consider, sanctions imposed by foreign countries or entities in its decision-making process to issue a judgment in the case. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine this legal question with a case study of the approach and procedure of German courts that have significant contractual relations with Iranian individuals. The findings show that the courts of this country, in contractual disputes in which there is an element of sanctions of foreign origin, do not refer to private international law and the rules of conflict of laws, and directly use the capacity of the domestic substantive laws of Germany. Simultaneously, they pay attention to the considerations of German foreign policy to issue the final verdict in such cases. German courts also pay attention to the goals and interests of the European Union's foreign policy and European values in the decision-making process to give effect to sanctions of foreign origin.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  

    References

    Books

    • Allwörden, S,. US terror lists in German private law: on the conflict of law and substantive problems of third-country blacklists with extraterritorial effect, Mohr Siebeck, 2014. (In German)
    • Anderegg, K., Ausländische Eingrisnormen im internationalen Vertragsrecht, Mohr Siebeck, 1989. (In German)
    • Azaredo da Silveira, M. Trade Sanctions and International Sales. Netherlands: Kluwer, 2014.
    • Basedow, J., The Law of Open Societies: Private Ordering and Public Regulation of International Relations – General Course on Private International Law, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Martinus Nijho, 2013.
    • Beaucillon, C., Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
    • A., German companies and the Israel boycott, Law and Economics Publishing House, 1994. (In German)
    • Bermann, G., “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration”. In F Ferrari and Kröll S, Conflict of Laws in International Commercial Arbitration. New York: JurisNet, 2019.
    1. Felbermayr, G., Kirilakha, A., Syropoulos C., Yalcin, E and Yotov, Y., The Global Sanctions Data Base’: Mapping international sanction policies from 1950-2019, 2021.
    2. Forwick, C. Extraterritorial US export controls Consequences for the drafting of contracts, Law and Economics publishing house, 1993. (In German)
    3. Großfeld and Junker A., The CoCom in international business law. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. (In German)
    4. Kinsch, , The Act of the Foreign Prince, LGDJ, 1994. (In French)
    5. Knüppel, N., Mandatory substantive law and international contractual obligations, Bonn, 1988. (In German)
    6. Kreuzer, K,. Foreign commercial law before German courts, CF Müller, 1986. (In German)
    7. Lehmann, R., Mandatory law of third countries in international contract law: On the meaning and application of Art. Frankfurt, Peter Lang, 1986. (In German)
    8. Neumann, N., International Trade Embargoes and Private Law Contracts, Nomos, 2000. (In German)
    9. Tamás, S., Economic Sanctions in EU Private International Law, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020.

    Articles

    1. Barraclough, A. & Waincymer, J. “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Commercial Arbitration,” Melbourne Journal of International Law 6, 2005.
    2. Basedow, J., “Private Law Effects of Foreign Export Controls”, 27 German Yearbook of International Law, 1984.
    3. Baum, H., “Note: Actual and potential overriding norms”, 53 RabelsZ, 1989. (In German)
    4. Brunner, C. J. H. “Force Majeure and Hardship under General Contract Principles: Exemption for Nonperformance in International Arbitration,” Kluwer Law International 168, 2008.
    5. Junker, A., “Obligation to pay damages in the event of a violation of a foreign embargo - At the same time a discussion of the decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 20.11.1990”, 46 JuristenZeitung, 1991. (In German)
    6. Mankowski, P. "German insurer and the US Sanctions against Iran - a small lesson on foreign Mandator norms" Law of the international economy, 2015. (In German)
    7. Mankowski, P., “Third-country Sanctions Norms, foreign policy in International Private Law, consideration of facts instead of norms: Art. 9 Para. 3 Rome I-VO in the practical case, (at the Paris Court of Appeal, 25.2.2015 – 12/23757)”, Rabel's journal for foreign and international private law 36, 2016. (In German)
    8. Mayer, B. and Albrecht, M., “Bank Contracts and Financial Sanctions: Right to Refusal in Case of Imminent Violation of US Regulations?” Journal of Business and Banking Law 26, 2015. (In German)
    9. Prieß, H. and Schaper, M., "Performance or non-performance - On the enforceability of contractual claims in the event of conflicting foreign Sanctions law" in Ehlers, D. and Wolfgang, H., (eds), Export Control Law: Inventory and Perspectives; Handbook on export control law - Festschrift for Dr Arnold Wallraff, Specialist media for law and economics, 2015. (In German)
    10. Vetter, E,. “Conflict of laws issues in cross-border subcontractor contracts in industrial plant construction”, 87 ZVglRWiss, 1988. (In German)
    11. Wöhlert, H. “EU regulations take precedence over an executive order of the US President in freezing funds”, Company and Business Law, 2011. (In German)
    12. Zimmer, D., “Foreign commercial law before German civil courts. On the distinction between a normative consideration of foreign mandatory norms and a mere consideration of their actual consequences”, Practice of International Private and Procedural Law 13, 1993. (In German)

    Judicial Practices

    1. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment of 08.02.1984 – VIII ZR 254/82, RabelsZ, 1989. (In German)
    2. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 24.5.1962 – II ZR 199/60, NJW, 1962. (In German)
    3. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 16.4.1975 – I ZR 40/73, 64 Decisions of the Federal Court of Justice in civil matters, 183, NJW, 1975. (In German)
    4. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 17.11.1994 – III ZR 70/93, DtZ, 1995. (In German)
    5. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 17.12.1959, Az: VII ZR 198/58, BGHZ 31, 367, 371, 1959. (In German)
    6. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 19.4.1962 – VII ZR 162/60, 1962/63, 163 German Court Rulings in Private International Law, 1962. (In German)
    7. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 21.12.1960 – VIII ZR 1/60, NJW, 1961. (In German)
    8. Federal Court of Justice, Judgment, 28.01.1965 – Ia ZR 273/63, 1965. (In German)
    9. Krefeld Regional Court, judgment of 24.9.1980, 7 O 190/80, 1980. (In German)
    10. Hamburg Regional Court, Judjment, 03.12.2014 - 401 HKO 7/14 RIW 2015, 458, Scope of the EU embargo on Iran - no substantive implications of the corresponding US embargo, 2015. (In German)
    11. Marienwerder Higher Regional Court, 10.1892, 20 Journal of Private International Law, 1892. (In German)
    12. Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, Judgment 9.5.2011 – Az. 23 U 30/10, ZIP 2011, 1354. (In German)
    13. Payesh Gostaran Pishro Ltd v Pipe Survey International CV and P&L Pipe Survey, (2020), Court of Rotterdam, Case No C / 10/572099 / HA ZA 19-352.
    14. Supreme Court, 21.10.1921, II. Civil Senate, Report No. II 245/21, 33 Niemeyer's Journal of International Law, Kiel: Gedruckt bei Schmidt & Klaunig, 1924. (In German)
    15. Supreme Court, judgment, 7.1930. – Economic and Legal. 5, 15 German jurisprudence in the field of international private law, 1930. (In German)
    16. Supreme Court, judgment, 13.11.1917, II 167/17, RGZ 91, 260, obligation of the seller to provide a replacement, 1917. (In German)
    17. Supreme Court, judgment, 20.09.1918 - II 137/18, 217 Warneyers yearbook of decisions, 1918. (In German)
    18. Supreme Court, judgment, 22.11.1916, II 265/16, 460 contributions to the explanation of German law (Gruchot), 1917. (In German)
    19. Supreme Court, judgment, 28.06.1918- Rep II. 86/18, RGZ 93, 182, 185, 1918. (In German)
    20. Supreme Court, judgment, 5.1936. – IV 272/35, 10 Rabel's journal for foreign and international private law, 1936. (In German)
    21. Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court, ZS, judgment, 1.4.1954 – 3 U 7/53, 163 Rabel's journal for foreign and international private law, 1954 and 1955. (In German)
    22. Opinion of the Federal Council on the draft of a law for the new regulation of international private law, 10/504, 10/20/83, 1983. (In German)
    23. The Netherlands: District Court at the Hague Judgment in Compagnie Europeenne Des Petroles S.A. v. Sensor Nederland B.V. (Extraterritoriality of U.S. Export Administration Regulations; Contractual Obligations). (1983). International Legal Materials, 22(1), 66-74. doi:10.1017/S002078290005837X/
    24. Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co (No 2), QB (Com Ct) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports.
    25. Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v Bankers Trust [1989] QB.

    Other Authorities

    1. Introductory Act to the Civil Code in the version promulgated on 21 September 1994, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I p. 2494, last amended by Article 2 of the Act of 25 June 2021, (Federal Law Gazette I p. 2133); Article 240 last amended by Article 10 of the Act of 22 December 2020 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3328).
    2. “Extraterritorial Subsidiary Jurisdiction,” Law and Contemporary Problems 50, 1987.
    3. Civil Code of August 18, 1896. (n.d.). § 275 BGB. Exclusion of the obligation to perform. In Law of Obligations: Book 2, Section 1, Title 1.
    4. Executive Order 13382 of the US President of 28 June 2005.
    5. Eroupean Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L103/1, 2007.
    6. Eroupean Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, OJ L281/1, 2010.
    7. Gabriel Felbermayr, Aleksandra Kirilakha, Constantinos Syropoulos, Erdal Yalcin, Yoto Yotov, The ‘Global Sanctions Data Base’: Mapping international sanction policies from 1950-2019, 18 May 2021.

     

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 28 April 2023
  • Accept Date: 13 May 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics