at some point in 2006, or earlier, a dispute arose between the
Finnish and British sides over the final amount, and the British side
insisted that the Finns be fully recompensed for the value of the
property confiscated after the Winter War, and the subsequent Soviet
occupation. After the Finns failed to provide the necessary paperwork,
and the Soviets failed to pay, a claim was submitted in court in July
2006 by the British side. The German Embassy in Helsinki was asked to
pay, but declined to do so. This is the point where most people have
determined that the whole thing is a ploy to cover for Germany. In
fact, in 2006 German Chancellor Merkel, who had previously met with the
Finnish head of government Silvennoinen in her office, had not even been
invited to the German Embassy, and Silvennoinen had requested the Finns
to not invite any heads of state or any ministers. It was therefore
impossible that German officials had a hand in such an event.
However, what is of significance to the issue at hand is the German
Government’s response. Germany rejected the British claim, and
subsequently refused to pay, and Germany’s rejection of the British
claim was the subject of extensive media coverage in Finland, which
caused the German Government to take steps to prevent the claim being
adjudicated by the German courts. At the start of 2007 German Finance
Minister Steinbrueck visited Helsinki, and he was accompanied by the
German Ambassador to Finland, Wolfgang Richter. The visit was arranged
and publicized in the manner that German officials have used to
coordinate international negotiations in the past, to avoid any
association with the United Kingdom. And, although German Finance
Minister Steinbrueck and the German Ambassador arrived separately, they
spent a good deal of time in the presence of each other. When the
ambassador was asked if he and Steinbrueck were alone in the conference
room where the press statement was issued, he replied that they had met
in the hallway, and the press statement followed in the presence of
Steinbrueck and Richter.
When Steinbrueck and Richter returned to the capital for the
inauguration of the German Embassy, Steinbrueck made a speech in which
he reiterated Germany’s rejection of the British claim, and he mentioned
that Richter had met with the Finns in the preceding two months, an
incident which had taken place during the ambassador’s trip to
Washington D.C. to attend the G8 Summit.
It was immediately apparent that Germany had a clear intention not
only to interfere with the dispute in accordance with its practice, but
also to use the Finns to interfere with a British legal process in the
United Kingdom. The British government has been criticized for the way
in which it handled the dispute, and Germany might be criticized for
taking advantage of that fact to influence the outcome of the British
legal process.
On Wednesday, the United Kingdom will take the
opportunity to bring its claim against Germany to an international
arbitration panel. The United Kingdom has also decided to take the case
in international arbitration, rather than to take the German
counter-claim in British courts.
One question for the government to consider,
is whether it should withdraw the case from the European Court of Human
Rights, as Germany has asked the Finns to do, or it should go ahead with
the case in the international arbitral tribunal.
It should be noted that in the proceedings before the
European Court of Human Rights, the United Kingdom did not have a
chance to conduct discovery. This is an opportunity, for example, for the
British government to ask Germany to turn over documents in relation to
its actions in London in August 1939.
The British government would, no doubt, welcome Germany’s
agreement to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human
Rights. However, it would seem that that is not enough. Germany cannot
simply agree to comply with the judgment of the court in order to
dissuade it from bringing its case in the International Arbitral Court.
Some have criticized the British government for being
“suspect of using the courts to enforce their point of view in a dispute
over which they have no concern.” Britain is not alone in its desire to
have one way or the other, to settle a number of questions in the
regional area of the former East Germany.
Perhaps the government should look at the decision by
the Netherlands, which has decided to withdraw its own case against
Germany in the European Court of Human Rights. The Dutch government may
feel that it does have some influence in Europe, even if the European
Union will not be established until 2004.
The British government should try to persuade Germany
that the court in Strasbourg will be as fair as possible in making its
decision, and will not impose on Germany, which, of course, is a
recipient of the court’s juridical protection, any “pre-judgment”.
Germany should have the right to demand that the
government of Great Britain explain why it has chosen to support the
position of the German parliament against the government of Chancellor
Helmut Kohl. Is it merely a domestic matter between two governments?
German politicians and German people will see through
this British strategy. If Britain really intends to do everything in its
power to undermine Germany’s position in international arbitral
proceedings, then they should also expect the German government to take
steps that will defend Germany’s interests in the international arena.
If, however, the British government really wants to
give Germany the opportunity to have its case heard, and to see that the
judges, not its political representatives, will hear that case, then it
must be given back its role as the legal representative of Great Britain
in the European Union.
Germany’s interests should be discussed in the
Council of the European Union. This would be the body which could also
make the appropriate rules about the access of other states to the
court.
A real “European legal area” would be formed, if the
government of Great Britain would not be allowed to obstruct this
process.
In the Council of the European Union, German, French,
Spanish and Dutch citizens could have their legal claims against the
government of Great Britain put forward to a judge who could listen to
the case without having to be influenced by the political influence of
the two parties represented by Britain.
For more details about how different tax settlement policies would help with your tax debts, call (888)489-4889 for a free consultation.