Jump to content

Finally reported: Kasit off to Germany to retrieve royal jet


Flashermac
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks. That was I was seeking to know. German law is totally unknown to me. I think that is part of the problem with this thread. We are talking about Thai law, German law and international law, whilst most of us are only semi-familiar with our own country's laws.

 

The US follows Anglo-American law, with common roots in the UK. I wonder how Germany's laws came about, when less than a century and a half ago there was no Germany - only many German-speaking independent states. Perhaps Prussian law became supreme?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You might find it dating back to Roman law. But that is just my guess.

 

Good question. I had to check Wikipedia:

 

In short, German law is a mixture of very, very old German tribal rules and Roman law, spiced with the French Code civile.

 

The origin of German law is actually German law dating back to the German tribes.

In the 11th/12th century the first laws had been written down. And in the 12th century Roman laws became influential. In the 18th century several German kingdoms wrote down their own laws like in Bavaria and Prussia. Later the Code civil (during Napoleon's occupation of cities like Cologne) added new laws.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Walter Bau is defunct, how can they sue anybody? And if they have gone bankrupt, won't any money they may receive go to pay off their creditors?

 

In the US, bankrupt parties sue people and companies all the time. I am not aware of any legal system where the claims simply disappear when the claimant is bankrupt.

 

There are complex legal questions about who owns and controls those claims (e.g., creditors, a debtor-in-possession, official receiver, etc) and practical problem of pursuing those claims, such how to get the employees to testify about the underlying facts when after they were terminated and who funds the litigation or arbitration.

 

Here, the reports are that proceeds from the recovery will go to the employees at Walter Bau who lost their jobs because of Thailand's breach. They are creditors of Walter Bau if they weren't paid. Who know? Its ultimately not relevant.

 

The case has already been decided and Walter Bau won. The Thai government is challenging the award, but the grounds for challenging an arbitration award are very narrow. They are mostly technical procedural issues that the lawyers themselves can address.

 

You cannot re-litigate or re-argue the underlying dispute itself when challenging an arbitration award. The New York Convention is quite clear on this, and Thailand is a party to the New York Convention. So unless Thailand can win on one of the eight narrow grounds I listed above in this thread, it loses the challenge.

 

That is why Thailand's claim that this matter is not over is so misleading. In arbitration, the case is essentially over when the arbitration issues an award, unless you can establish some pretty outrageous violation in the arbitration proceedings themselves.

 

This is why arbitration awards are typically paid without the sort of games were seeing here (again, I provided several links on this above). This is one of the reasons why the Japanese company that is (was now?) going to lend money to extend Bangkok's transportation system said: "no arbitration clause, no contract".

 

They know the Thai government, and the know that if they get stiffed, they will get mired down in one-sided Thai litigation proceedings that will go on and on forever. They've done business here before, and they don't want to go through that nonsense.

 

The Walter Bau case is over, and its time to Thailand to pay. If they don't want to pay while their appeal (which is likely weak) is pending, the should put up a bond so that Walter Bau knows it will get paid if Thailand loses the appeal. And they should stop complaining when Walter Bau seizes assets to satisfy its claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. That was I was seeking to know. German law is totally unknown to me. I think that is part of the problem with this thread. We are talking about Thai law, German law and international law, whilst most of us are only semi-familiar with our own country's laws.

 

 

The US follows Anglo-American law, with common roots in the UK. I wonder how Germany's laws came about, when less than a century and a half ago there was no Germany - only many German-speaking independent states. Perhaps Prussian law became supreme?

 

 

Indeed, German law is based on the Roman law. Thai and German law are actually very similar, because Japan copied German law in the late 19 century and then Thailand copied the Japanese law. Thus, German and Thai law, both based on Roman law, are a way closer as e.g. German and American law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, German law is based on the Roman law. Thai and German law are actually very similar, because Japan copied German law in the late 19 century and then Thailand copied the Japanese law. Thus, German and Thai law, both based on Roman law, are a way closer as e.g. German and American law.

 

 

Yep, Japan imported German laws, the Prussian system of bureaucracy, German philosophy, medicine, e.g. (Japanese doctors still use German medical terms...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the seized plane in Munich:

 

The prince will not get his plane back until the Thai government hands over the 20 million euros (846 million baht ) bank guarantee.

Spiegel Online (German)

 

It seems that the Thai way - producing some paperworks which obviously is not in sync with the official ownership registers, personal intervention by the Thai elite (the foreign minister, the Air Force chief), more or less open threats against the German government - failed to work abroad.**

It will be interesting to see how this matter will be reported in LOS...

**Mr. T. had to make a similar experience in the UK, when he tried to bend UK laws with money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the German government is fed up with the stupid games of the Thai government, the Thai government starts to play hardball now:

 

Warning to Germany on tollway row

 

The Thai government spokesman has warned the German Foreign Ministry to be cautious in demanding that Thailand compensate a German company that invested in the Don Muang Tollway.

 

Panitan Wattanayagorn, deputy secretary-general to the Thai prime minister and acting government spokeman, said Tuesday that the German Foreign Ministry should get its facts right, to protect bilateral relations.blink.gif

 

He was responding to the German Foreign Ministry's statement through the German embassy in Bangkok that the Thai government should pay 36 million euros to Walter Bau Co because an international arbitration process had been finalised with its ruling that the Thai government must pay this amount in compensation for past contractual violations that damaged Don Muang Tollway Co, of which Walter Bau is a now bankrupt shareholder.

 

Mr Panitan said he had understood that the German Foreign Ministry recognised the separation of the executive and the judiciary, and he was surprised that the German Foreign Ministry that seen fit to comment on the justice system.

 

Mr Panitan insisted that the legal dispute between the Thai government and Walter Bau was in the process of an appeal and many legal aspects of the case had yet to be considered. He said the Thai Foregn Ministry was about to explain the issue to its German counterpart right away.

 

Bilateral relations had been good at the levels of their governments and their people, the present issue was sensitive and the German Foreign Ministry had to be careful and ensure it has the correct information, Mr Panitan said.

 

The acting government spokeman said the Thai government expected good cooperation from the German government in the matter of the application to extradite fugitve former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, as it was reported that Germany had granted entry to Thaksin.

 

Mr Panitan said Thaksin had to face justice in Thailand.

 

Thaksin has evaded a two-year jail term that the Thai Supreme Court handed down in 2008 for his abuse of authority in facilitating his then-wife's purchase of state-owned land in inner Bangkok in 2003, when Thaksin was prime minister, at a discounted price.

 

BKK Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

"as it was reported that Germany had granted entry to Thaksin."

 

Maybe Thaksin went to pay the bill?

 

Sanuk!

 

As I understand Mr. T. visited Germany with his Montenegro passport. The German government learnt about this after his arrival and was not happy about it, and they asked silently Mr. T. to leave. But this happened some time (1-3 years?) ago.

 

In the context of this article mentioning Mr. T. only can be seen as a (childish) way of putting some blame on the German government, even though this a completely unrelated matter.

 

My guess: the published responses by Thai officials are mainly aimed at the Thai people, since these comments will not have any positive influence on the unresolved payment matter, it just might the matter worse.

Link to comment
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...