DOCSLIB.ORG

Property Restitution and Compensation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Property Restitution and Compensation PROPERTY RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION Practices and Experiences of Claims Programmes The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. Publisher: International Organization for Migration 17 route des Morillons 1211 Geneva 19 Switzerland Tel: +41.22.717 91 11 Fax: +41.22.798 61 50 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.iom.int ____________________________________________________ ISBN 978-92-9068-450-3 © 2008 International Organization for Migration (IOM) _____________________________________________________ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. 83_08 PROPERTY Restitution AND COMPENSATION Practices and Experiences of Claims Programmes CONTENTS Foreword ...........................................................................................................xi Preface ............................................................................................................ xiii Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................xv List of acronyms ............................................................................................ xvii Introduction .......................................................................................................1 Practices and experiences of claims programmes – comparative overview ....................................................................................7 A. Legal framework ..........................................................................................13 I. CRPC in Bosnia and Herzegovina ...................................................................14 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................14 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................16 II. HPD/HPCC in Kosovo .....................................................................................17 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................17 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................18 III. CRRPD in Iraq .................................................................................................20 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................20 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................21 IV. South Africa Programme .................................................................................22 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................22 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................24 V. United Nations Compensation Commission .................................................25 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................25 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................27 VI. German Forced Labour Compensation Programme ..................................28 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................28 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................29 VII. GFLCP Property Loss Programme ..............................................................31 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................31 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................32 Property Restitution and Compensation Practices and Experiences of Claims Programmes i VIII. Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland ......34 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................34 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................35 IX. 9/11 Compensation Fund ................................................................................36 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................36 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................37 X. Annan Plan for Cyprus .....................................................................................39 1. The establishment of the claims programme ...............................................39 2. The mandate and jurisdiction of the claims programme ...........................39 B. Organizational structures ...........................................................................41 I. CRPC in Bosnia and Herzegovina ..................................................................43 1. The organs/departments of the claims programme ....................................43 2. Centralized/decentralized structures ...........................................................43 3. The policy-making body ................................................................................44 4. The decision-making body or bodies ...........................................................44 5. The support structures (Secretariat) ............................................................45 6. The body responsible for enforcing or implementing decisions .............................................................................48 7. External supervision/auditing on administrative or financial matters ...............................................................49 II. HPD/HPCC in Kosovo .....................................................................................49 1. The organs/departments of the claims programme ....................................49 2. Centralized/decentralized structures ...........................................................51 3. The policy-making body ................................................................................51 4. The decision-making body or bodies ...........................................................52 5. The support structures (Secretariat) ............................................................53 6. The body responsible for enforcing or implementing decisions .............................................................................53 7. External supervision/auditing on administrative or financial matters ...............................................................54 III. CRRPD in Iraq .................................................................................................54 1. The organs/departments of the claims programme ...................................54 2. Centralized/decentralized structures ...........................................................54 3. The policy-making body ................................................................................54 4. The decision-making body or bodies ...........................................................55 5. The support structures (Secretariat) ............................................................56 6. The body responsible for enforcing or implementing decisions ............................................................................57 7. External supervision/auditing on administrative or financial matters ...............................................................57 ii Contents IV. South Africa Programme .................................................................................57 1. The organs/departments of the claims programme ....................................57 2. Centralized/decentralized structures ...........................................................58 3. The policy-making body ................................................................................58 4. The decision-making body or bodies ...........................................................58 5. The support structures (Secretariat) ............................................................59 6. The body responsible for enforcing or implementing decisions .............................................................................60 7. External supervision/auditing on administrative or financial matters ...............................................................61 V. United Nations Compensation Commission .................................................61 1. The organs/departments of the claims programme ....................................61 2. Centralized/decentralized structures ...........................................................61 3. The policy-making body ................................................................................62 4. The decision-making body or bodies
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1
    Key to the European Patent Convention Edition 2015 Part VI Article 106 - Decisions subject to appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1. decisions [A106(1)] G0005/91 [T0479/04] Article 106i - Decisions subject to appeal Composition of the opposition division, partiality. (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions1 of the Receiving Section2, Examining Divisions, Opposition Divisions3 Under the EPC is no legal basis for separate appeal and the Legal Division. It4 shall have suspensive5 ef- against an order by a director of a department of first fect. instance such as an opposition division rejecting an ob- 6 jection to a member of the division on the ground of (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings suspected partiality. The composition of the opposition as regards one of the parties can only7 be appealed to- 8 9 10 division could however be challenged on such a ground gether with the final decision , unless the decision in an appeal against its final decision or against a sepa- 11 12 allows a separate appeal . rately appealable interlocutory decision under article (3) The right to file an appeal against decisions relating 106 (3) EPC. to the apportionment or fixing of costs in opposition proceedings may be restricted in the Implementing D0015/95 [D0028/97, D0001/98, D0023/99, Regulations. D0024/99, D0009/03, D0025/05, D0004/11] Ref.: Art. 104 R. 63, 65, 68, 90 Of the Disciplinary Committee. PCT: R. 82ter Appealability of a Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint. A Disciplinary Committee de- cision dismissing a complaint is a decision in the legal 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Reform in Serbia 2008–2012
    VESNA RAKIĆ- VODINELIĆ ANA KNEŽEVI Ć BOJOVIĆ MARIO RELJANOVIĆ JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 CENTAR ZA UNAPREĐIVANJE PRAVNIH STUDIJA prof. dr Vesna Rakić Vodinelić • dr Ana Knežević Bojović dr Mario Reljanović JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 Library Editor Prof. dr Jovica Trkulja Published by Center For Advanced Legal Studies Goce Delceva 36, 11 000 Beograd tel: 2608 360, fax:2608 346 e-mail: [email protected], www.cups.rs For The Publisher prof. dr dr.h.c. Vladimir Vodinelic Reviewed by prof. dr Momčilo Grubač prof. dr Mihajlo Dika prof. dr Zoran Ivošević Translated by Ana Knežević Bojović Language Editing Svetlana Imperl Prepress and printing „Dosije studio“, Beograd Circulation 500 copies ISBN 978-86-7546-076-3 dr VESNA RAKIĆ VODINELIĆ dr ANA KNEŽEVIĆ BOJOVIĆ dr MARIO RELJANOVIĆ JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 Belgrade 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface. 9 Abbreviations. 11 Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić PART ONE I: REFORMING THE JUDICIARY – THE 2008–2010 PERIOD . 13 1. Introductory Observations . 13 1.1. Is There a Formula of „Good Judiciary“? . 13 1.2. Elements of the „Good Judiciary“ Formula. 17 1.3. Judicial Councils . 18 1.4. Legal Reception of European Standards Concerning the Judiciary in Serbia . 22 2. Normative Grounds . 35 2.1. International Legal, Theoretic, Constitutional and Statutory Grounds of the Latest Judicial Reform . 35 2.2. The Constitution and the ConStitutional act for the Implementation Of the Constitution . 39 2.3. Judicial Organisation Statutes . 44 2.4. Decision on Establishing the Criteria and Norms for Assessing the Competence, Capacity and Worthiness for the Appointment of Judges and Court Presidents .
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Border Cooperation in the Execution Of
    Crime, Law and Social Change (2020) 74:381–404 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09900-7 Cross-border cooperation in the execution of sentences between the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium: an empirical and comparative legal study on the implementation of EU framework decisions 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA Robin Hofmann1 & Hans Nelen1 Published online: 14 May 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract This study aims at comparing legal practices in the execution of sentences within the framework of cross-border cooperation between The Netherlands, Belgium and Ger- many. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, the implementation of the EU Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners and 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions in the three countries is analyzed. Interview data with legal practitioners suggest that social rehabilitation, consents of the convicted individuals and the actual place of living, play an important role in the initiations of transfers. Empirical evidence that both Framework Decisions are increasingly instrumentalized for migration control purposes, as the current scien- tific debate suggest, is weak in the three case countries. The relatively small numbers of transfers of prisoners and judgements show, that the transfer instrument is still not implemented to its full potential. This study exemplifies remaining challenges connect- ed to the principle of mutual trust in the daily practice of cross-border legal cooperation within the EU. Keywords Comparative criminal law . Penology . Cross-border cooperation . Sentencing . Crimmigration . Prison population . Prisoner transfer * Robin Hofmann [email protected] 1 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 1-3, 6211 LHMaastricht, The Netherlands 382 Hofmann R., Nelen H.
    [Show full text]
  • Der Prozess Der Deutschen Wiedervereinigung Aus Der Sicht Der Angelsächsischen Partner, Dem Vereinigten Königreich Und Den Vereinigten Staaten Von Amerika
    1 Dissertation Der Prozess der deutschen Wiedervereinigung aus der Sicht der angelsächsischen Partner, dem Vereinigten Königreich und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika von Jörg Beck betreut durch Herrn Professor Dr. Hermann Hiery Lehrstuhl für Neueste Geschichte an der Universität Bayreuth Zweitkorrektor: Professor Dr. Jan-Otmar Hesse 2 Zum sehr großen Dank für die extrem starke Unterstützung an meine Mutter Frau Ilse Beck 3 Vorwort Die Dissertation „Der Prozess der Deutschen Wiedervereinigung aus der Sicht der angelsächsischen Partnerstaaten, dem Vereinigten Königreich und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika“ an der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth wurde begutachtet von Herrn Professor Dr. Hermann Hiery, Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Neueste Geschichte an der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth und Herrn Professor Dr. Jan-Otmar Hesse, Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte an der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth. Die Dissertation wurde am 15. November 2017 angenommen. Jörg Beck Bayreuth, 24. Juli 2019 4 5 Inhaltsverzeichnis Seite Einleitung 8 A Problembereich und Fragestellungen 8 B Zum Forschungsinteresse der Kapitel im Einzelnen 9 C Forschungsstand 12 C 1 Forschungsstand in der Sekundärliteratur 12 C 2 Überblick und Kritik der verwendeten Quellen 15 Methodik 25 Materialzugang 25 Der Prozess der deutschen Wiedervereinigung aus der Sicht der angelsächsischen Partner, dem Vereinigten Königreich und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika 29 1 Das
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of War Reparations in Polish-German Relations After World War Ii
    Patrycja Sobolewska* THE QUESTION OF WAR REPARATIONS IN POLISH-GERMAN RELATIONS AFTER WORLD WAR II DOI: 10.26106/gc8d-rc38 PWPM – Review of International, European and Comparative Law, vol. XVII, A.D. MMXIX ARTICLE I. Introduction There is no doubt that World War II was the bloodiest conflict in history. Involv- ing all the great powers of the world, the war claimed over 70 million lives and – as a consequence – has changed world politics forever. Since it all started in Poland that was invaded by Germany after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack, this country has suffered the most. On September 17, 1939 Poland was also invaded by the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the Germans razed Warsaw to the ground. War losses were enormous. The library and museum collec- tions have been burned or taken to Germany. Monuments and government buildings were blown up by special German troops. About 85 per cent of the city had been destroyed, including the historic Old Town and the Royal Castle.1 Despite the fact that it has been 80 years since this cataclysmic event, the Polish government has not yet received any compensation from German authorities that would be proportionate to the losses incurred. The issue in question is still a bone of contention between these two states which has not been regulated by both par- ties either. The article examines the question of war reparations in Polish-German relations after World War II, taking into account all the relevant factors that can be significant in order to resolve this problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Court Judgment No. 237/2005, of September 26 (Unofficial Translation)
    Constitutional Court Judgment No. 237/2005, of September 26 (Unofficial translation) The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court comprising Mr. Guillermo Jiménez Sánchez, President, Mr. Vicente Conde Martín de Hijas, Ms. Elisa Pérez Vera, Mr. Ramón Rodríguez Arribas and Mr. Pascual Sala Sánchez, Judges, has rendered IN THE NAME OF THE KING the following J U D G M E N T in the appeal for protection proceedings Nos. 1744-2003, 1755-2003 and 1773-2003, the first of which was filed by Ms. Rigoberta Menchú Tumn, Ms. Silvia Solórzano Foppa, Ms. Silvia Julieta Solórzano Foppa, Mr. Santiago Solórzano Ureta, Mr. Julio Alfonso Solórzano Foppa, Mr. Lorenzo Villanueva Villanueva, Ms. Juliana Villanueva Villanueva, Mr. Lorenzo Jesús Villanueva Imizocz, Ms. Ana María Gran Cirera, Ms. Montserrat Gibert Grant, Ms. Ana María Gibert Gran, Ms. Concepción Gran Cirera, Mr. José Narciso Picas Vila, Ms. Aura Elena Farfán, Ms. Rosario Pu Gómez, C. I. Est. Prom. Derechos Humanos, Mr. Arcadio Alonzo Fernández, Conavigua, Famdegua and Ms. Ana Lucrecia Molina Theissen, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Gloria Rincón Mayoral and defended by the attorney Mr. Carlos Vila Calvo, and by the Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Isabel Cañedo Vega and defended by the attorney Mr. Antonio García Martín; No. 1755-2003 by the Asociación de Derechos Humanos de España, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Irene Gutiérrez Carrillo and defended by the attorney Mr. Víctor Hortal Fernández; and No. 1773-2003 by Asociación libre de Abogados, Asociación contra la Tortura, Associació d’Amistat amb el Poble de Guatemala, Asociación Centro de Documentación y Solidaridad con América Latina y África and Comité Solidaridad Internacionalista de Zaragoza represented by Court Procurator Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • The RAMPART JOURNAL of Individualist Thought Is Published Quarterly (Maj'ch, June, September and December) by Rampart College
    The Wisdom of "Hindsight" by Read Bain I On the Importance of Revisionism for Our Time by Murray N. Rothbard 3 Revisionism: A Key to Peace by llarry Elmer Barnes 8 Rising Germanophohia: The Chief Oh~~tacle to Current World War II Revisionism by Michael F. Connors 75 Revisionism and the Cold War, 1946-1~)66: Some Comments on Its Origins and Consequences by James J. Martin 91 Departments: Onthe Other Hand by Robert Lf.~Fevre 114 V01. II, No. 1 SPRING., 1966 RAMPART JOURNAL of Individualist Thought Editor .. _. __ . .__ _ __ .. __ _. Ruth Dazey Director of Publications - ---.- .. J. Dohn Lewis Published by Pine Tree Press for RAMPART COLLEGE Box 158 Larkspur, Colorado 80118 President -----------------.------------------ William J. Froh Dean . .. .__ ._ Robert LeFevre Board of Academic Advisers Robert L. Cunningham, Ph.D. Bruno Leoni, Ph.D. University of San Francisco University of Pavia San Francisco, California Turin, Italy Arthur A. Ekirch, Ph.D~ James J. Martin, Ph.D. State University of New York Rampart College Graduate School Albany, New York Larkspur, Colorado Georg. Frostenson, Ph.D. Ludwig von Mises, Ph.D. Sollentuna, Sweden New York University New York, New York J. P. Hamilius, Jr., Ph.D. Toshio Murata, M.B.A. College of Esch-sur-Alzette Luxembourg Kanto Gakuin University Yokohama, Japan F. A. Harper, Ph.D. Wm. A. Paton, Ph.D. Institute for Humane Studies University of Michigan Stanford, California Ann Arbor, Michigan F. A. von Hayek, Ph.D. Sylvester Petro, Ll.M. University of Freiburg New York University Freiburg, Germany New York, New York W.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution on Inadmissibility
    * REPUBLIKA E KOSOVEs - PEnYJiJIHKA~ KOCOBO - REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO GJYKATA KUSHTETUESE YCTABHM CY,lJ; CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Prishtina, on 17 December 2020 Ref. no.:RK 1665/20 This translation is unofficial and serves for informational purposes only. RESOLUTION ON INADMISSIBILITY In Case No. KI189/19 Applicant Alban Miftaraj Constitutional review of Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO composed of: Arta Rama-Hajrizi, President Bajram Ljatifi, Deputy President Bekim Sejdiu, Judge Selvete Gerxhaliu-Krasniqi, Judge Gresa Caka-Nimani, Judge Safet Hoxha, Judge Radomir Laban, Judge Remzije Istrefi-Peci, Judge, and Nexhmi Rexhepi, Judge Applicant 1. The Referral was submitted by Alban Miftaraj, with permanent address in Prishtina (hereinafter: the Applicant). 1 Challenged decision 2. The Applicant challenges the constitutionality of Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019, which was served on him on 15 July 2019. Subject matter 3. The subject matter of the Referral is the constitutional review of the challenged Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court, of 26 June 2019, which allegedly violates the Applicant's rights guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] and 55 [Limitations on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), in conjunction with Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the ECHR). Legal basis 4. The Referral is based on paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Articles 22 [Processing Referrals] and 47 [Individual Requests] of Law No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Claims Proceedings in Practice a Few Lessons Learned
    Mass Claims Proceedings in Practice A Few Lessons Learned By Pierre A. Karrer* Every mass claims process is different from the next. Mass claims pro- ceedings are set up by usually complex political processes. Legal and moral is- sues come to the fore. Money matters, but it is particularly important to see that somebody still cares. The relevant facts are difficult to establish and are often traumatic. to the next, a few lessons Still, as one goes from one mass claims1 process may be learned and may be worth recording. 1. SHOULD MASS CLAIMS COMMISSIONS BE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS? 1.1. No. They should, however, be composed and operate to some extent like arbi- tral tribunals. 1.2. To be composed in arbitral fashion gives a mass claims commission legitimacy. The two sides of the controversy, or at least the champions of two sides of a controversy which may involve many more players, have a say about the com- 2 position of the commission. * Dr. iur.(Zurich); LLM (Yale), FCIArb; Hon. President, ASA Swiss Arbitration Associa- tion; Chairman, Property Claims Commission of the German Foundation "Remembrance, Responsi- bility and the Future." The views here expressed are the author's, not necessarily the Commission's. I. For a presentation of the Property Claims Commission's work which is now ending, see Karrer, "Mass Claims to provide rough justice", in Festschrift Peter Schlosser, 2005. See also www.iom.int; www.compensation-for-forced-labour.org. 2. For instance, two members of the Property Claims Commission were appointed by the Governments of the United States of America (Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • NILLESEN POLLITT FINAL Dutch Regulatory Failure7
    Cambridge Working Papers in Economics CWPE 0446 UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Department of Applied Economics The Consequences for Consumer Welfare of the 2001-2003 Electricity Distribution Price Review in the Netherlands Paul H. L. Nillesen and Michael G. Pollitt Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research CMI Working Paper 50 Cambridge Working Papers in Economics UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Department of Applied Economics Not to be quoted without permission M assachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research CMI Working Paper THE CONSEQUENCES FOR CONSUMER WELFARE OF THE 2001-2003 ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PRICE REVIEW IN THE * NETHERLANDS Paul H L Nillesen1 Assistant Director, Corporate Finance & Recovery PricewaterhouseCoopers De Entree 201 Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected] Michael G Pollitt2 Senior Lecturer in Business Economics Judge Institute of Management Cambridge CB2 1AG United Kingdom [email protected] September 2004 Abstract The Dutch regulatory process for setting the first X-Factors in the electricity distribution sector has gone badly wrong. During two-and-a-half years four different X-Factors were published by the regulator. These X-Factors fluctuated wildly. We demonstrate that Dutch electricity consumers will pay at least €300mln. more over three years for the distribution of electricity than might otherwise have been the case. We estimate that benefits for the companies in terms of extra revenue from lowered X-Factors amounts to 3~5 percent of total asset value. We provide a history of the regulatory process and analyse the impact of the different X-Factors on the final bills of consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Historian: 'Germany Was Biggest Debt Transgressor of 20Th Century' - SPIEGEL ONLINE 25/05/12 18:42
    Economic Historian: 'Germany Was Biggest Debt Transgressor of 20th Century' - SPIEGEL ONLINE 25/05/12 18:42 Economic Historian 'Germany Was Biggest Debt Transgressor of 20th Century' Think Greece's current economic malaise is the worst ever experienced in Europe? Think again. Germany, economic historian Albrecht Ritschl argues in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview, has been the worst debtor nation of the past century. He warns the country should take a more chaste approach in the euro crisis or it could face renewed demands for World War II reparations. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ritschl, Germany is coming across like a know-it-all in the debate over aid for Greece. Berlin is intransigent and is demanding obedience from Athens. Is this attitude justified? Ritschl: No, there is no basis for it. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Most Germans would likely disagree. Ritschl: That may be, but during the 20th century, Germany was responsible for what were the biggest national bankruptcies in recent history. It is only thanks to the United States, which sacrificed vast amounts of money after both World War I and World War II, that Germany is financially stable today and holds the status of Eu- rope's headmaster. That fact, unfortunately, often seems to be forgotten. SPIEGEL ONLINE: What happened back then exactly? Ritschl: From 1924 to 1929, the Weimar Republic lived on credit and even borrowed the money it needed for its World War I reparations payments from America. This credit pyramid collapsed during the economic crisis of 1931. The money was gone, the damage to the United States enormous, the effect on the global economy devastat- ing.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Origin of Specis” (Patent Specifications) BASIC FACTS (A.K.A
    The Origin of Specis (or, nearly everything you wanted to know about patents, but couldn’t be bothered asking) 22.Sep.2021 © Tony McStea 1992-2021 22.Sep.2021 About the Author… (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan) When I was a lad, I served a term As patent tech. assistant in a big paint firm I wrote applications and I argued and tried Patent offices to show that grant was justified And this sort of thing so suited me That now I’m patent attorney in industry. Acknowledgement My grateful thanks to all of you out there who helped me with this revised version by offering comments, corrections, criticisms, suggestions and advice, some of which I ignored, which is why the booklet still exists. The responsibility for any errors (not to mention the mediocre drawings and terrible jokes (or is it mediocre jokes and terrible drawings?)) is entirely mine. The responsibility for any views or opinions expressed herein is also entirely mine. N.B. Most costs mentioned herein were correct (more or less) at June, 2015, but, because of the tendency of official fees to fluctuation (and exchange rates to go up and down like yo-yos), and the consequent work of constantly adjusting them, they have been left as they are and are there to be general guides only. 22.Sep.2021 Note: changes to US Law On 16 March 2013 (thus missing by one day the Blessing of St. Patrick on the entire enterprise), the Leahy-Smith “America invents” Act (AIA), the most significant change to US patent law in half a century, came fully into effect.
    [Show full text]