Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Flashermac

Finally reported: Kasit off to Germany to retrieve royal jet

Recommended Posts

Do you know why the Thai government did not pay the German construction company after it seems to have been told to do so ?

 

Because, as I said, all the attempts to stop the judgement are not finished.

 

Thailand has filed an appeal to court decision from March, which means Thailand still has legal options to pursue. Since the court did not stay that decision, the claimant can indeed attempt to enforce it.

 

Again, would you write a check for 30 million Euros when there as a chance, not matter how slim, that you might not have to? Would you delay it doing so just as long as you could?

 

But, according to Gaddie, only those nasty Thais do that.

 

TH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thailand has filed an appeal to court decision from March, which means Thailand still has legal options to pursue. Since the court did not stay that decision, the claimant can indeed attempt to enforce it.

 

ThaiHome,

 

is it possible that you link somewhere it says that the Thai government filed an appeal to the March 2010 decision? All I can find is that they are in the process of filing an appeal, which is not the same as filing it.

Looks more like stalling tactics and the reason for current events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasit: No guarantee deposit for the release of royal jet

 

 

Thailand will not hand over the 20 million euros (846 million baht ) bank guarantee for the release of the Crown Prince's impounded jet and will fight the case to the end, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said today. :susel:

 

Mr Kasit said foreign ministry officials, the director of the Department of Civil Aviation, representatives of the Royal Thai Air Force and legal experts will travel to Germany to fight the case.

 

They will insist that the plane is the private property of His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, not the Thai government.

 

Thailand had already provided necessary evidence and documents to the German court and there was no need for Thai authorities to deposit the bank guarantee for the release of the Boeing 737 jet plane, Mr Kasit said.

 

Mr Kasit said he will meet public prosecutors tomorrow to discuss what steps should be taken to press for the plane's release.

 

Air Force commander ACM Itthaporn Subhawong confirmed that the Air Force handed over ownership of the plane to the Crown Prince in 2007, with the issuing of registration documents by the Department of Civil Aviation. The plane no longer belongs to the Thai Air Force, ACM Itthaporn said.

 

A German court has ordered the release of the Crown Prince's impounded jet upon receipt of a bank guarantee of 20 million euros.

 

The Boeing 737 was seized at Munich airport in southern Germany by court order last Tuesday in a long-running commercial dispute between Thailand and a now-insolvent German construction firm over the toll rates and investors' returns on the Don Muang Tollway.

 

But a court in nearby Landshut said it had received an assurance under oath from the Thai Department of Civil Aviation's director that the plane belonged to the Crown Prince, not the Thai state, as well as a 2007 registration certificate.

 

The vice-president of the court, Christoph Fellner, said however that since these documents provided only a "presumption of ownership'', 20 million euro had to be deposited via a bank guarantee.

 

The guarantee was set at that level because that was estimated to be the value of the plane, the court said.

 

The dispute goes back more than 20 years to the involvement of DEWEYDUCK, which merged with construction firm Walter Bau in 2001, in building a motorway link between Bangkok and Don Muang airport.

 

 

 

Bangkok Post

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buffalo Bill’s one line response to your rambling post is great: “Do you know why the Thai government did not pay the German construction company after it seems to have been told to do so?â€

 

There is no way that I am going to waste my time writing something as long as your post to respond to every point you raise (many of them nonsense) – I would like a few people here to actually read my post. But I will respond on a few points.

 

I will respond to your reference to AMCHAM’s position paper: it undercuts and puts the lie to your arguments so well. AMCHAM provides many solid reasons on why international arbitration is better for resolving disputes than domestic litigation. But AMCHAM represents US business interests in Thailand and therefore has to be diplomatic and obviously cannot list every reason. The AMCHAM paper says that international arbitration is preferable over litigation because, among other reasons, it helps avoid parallel proceedings and the delays associated with (here, endless) appeals.

 

And what do we see here in this dispute? We see the Thai government trying to derail enforcement of an arbitration award with parallel proceedings and endless appeals. International arbitration is intended to avoid precisely the ploys the Thai government is employing to avoid honoring the international award here.

 

And those ploys are not working. The German government is not giving up the plane unless the Thai government puts up a Bank guarantee for the value of the plane. What has the Thai government gained from challenging enforcement of the arbitration award in Germany other than a big legal bill and a bad reputation as government that doesn’t pay its bills?

 

"Most arbitral awards are voluntarily complied with with and do not require judicial enforcement." Why should the German government or any other government refrain from enforcing the arbitration award in while an appeal is pending before the U.S. Circuit Court when “an international award…has substantially greater (executory) legal force than a domestic court decision.â€

 

The New York Convention requires that the states that have ratified it to recognize and enforce international arbitration agreements and foreign arbitral awards issued in other contracting states, subject to certain limited exceptions. And those exceptions are very limited.

 

Here is where the post may seem long, but if we're to get technical, I will need to list the limited eight grounds for setting aside an international arbitration award. See if you think any apply here?

 

1. a party to the arbitration agreement was, under the law applicable to him, under some incapacity (Thailand was drunk when it signed the treaty containing the arbitration requirement?);

 

2. the arbitration agreement was not valid under its governing law (not according to the UN panel that issued the award);

 

3. a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case (yeah right, Thailand did not know about this);

 

4. the award deals with an issue not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains matters beyond the scope of the arbitration (subject to the proviso that an award which contains decisions on such matters may be enforced to the extent that it contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration which can be separated from those matters not so submitted) (a mouthful, but the arbitral panel decided that it did fall within the terms of submission - this is always construed broadly, particularly in NY, where Thailand is challenging the award);

 

5. the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the law of the place where the hearing took place (the "lex loci arbitri") (a panel convened under UN rules - unlikely);

 

6. the award has not yet become binding upon the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority, either in the country where the arbitration took place, or pursuant to the law of the arbitration agreement (Its immediately enforceable in the US - not a prayer on this one, and this was the only argument that Thailand was advancing in Germany);

 

7. the subject matter of the award was not capable of resolution by arbitration (of course a panel can award money damages and that is exactly what they did); or

 

8. enforcement would be contrary to "public policy" (maybe under Thai public policy, but that doesn't matter - it's the public policy of where the award was issued, and it not against pubic policy where the award was rendered).

 

You don’t re-litigate the merits of the underlying dispute. That has already been decided and Thailand has lost. I can’t see how they can claim they aren’t required to honor the award with a straight face when the grounds for a legitimate challenge are limited to the eight reasons set out above. So why don’t they just pay?

 

If they had paid in the first place, all of this would have been avoided. Thailand would not have further tarnished its reputation for failing to comply with its international obligations. And then sending the outgoing Minister of Foreign Affairs to stomp his feet and try to bully the Germans? That just made Thailand look childish. He is not doing the country any favors with this nonsense. This is a real embarrassment for Thailand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So why seize the CP's plane, if in fact it is actually owned by the Air Farce (which is unclear)? Why not go after a Thai Airways flight? That is the government carrier without question! Or was Walter Bau simply grandstanding?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 20 years they were probably fed up and went for the maximum exposure. No matter whom is wrong or right. This doesnt reflect well on the Thai government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why seize the CP's plane, if in fact it is actually owned by the Air Farce (which is unclear)? Why not go after a Thai Airways flight? That is the government carrier without question! Or was Walter Bau simply grandstanding?

 

 

I guess they choose especially this plane for the get as much publicity as possible. And it worked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why seize the CP's plane, if in fact it is actually owned by the Air Farce (which is unclear)? Why not go after a Thai Airways flight? That is the government carrier without question! Or was Walter Bau simply grandstanding?

 

Because Thai Airways is a state owned enterprise, its not clear to me that they could. The documents of public record and available - meaning WB could review them - stated the seized plane was owned by the airforce and they knew it was being used to private purposes. It qualified for seizure. Now the Thai government has introduced documents that were not publicly available saying that the plan was given to the CP. The court is skeptical; hence a high guarantee is required. In answer to your question, WB could not have seen these documents before the were, ehr, presented to the Thai Court.

 

Here is my question: why didn't Kasit bring them with him on his trip to Germany? Why the delay in, ehr, locating the documents? Maybe they are legitimate, but you can see the court is not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waerth and Kamui may also be right. It's up to the award holder. And this brings up another point: until the award is paid, they can go after More Thai assets. So why does't the Thai government meet it's obligations and just pay the award?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Abhisit wants to dump it into Yingluck's lap? :hmmm:

 

 

p.s. I'm already sick of seeing the new flash biographies of Yingluck that are appearing on the news stands. Here is Yingluck in Kentucky. Here is Yingluck with the guy she lives with. Here is Yingluck with her kid with the guy she lives with. Here is Yingluck eating noodles. Here is Yingluck taking a dump. For fark's sake, she hasn't DONE ANYTHING YET. :(

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...