STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 356, sig. 109-4/101 Page 10 · 10 of 22
STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 356, sig. 109-4/101
English Translation
6a - 2 - Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia the execution regulations -, the execution of debt securities in the various jurisdictions of the Great German Reich a regulation. I allow myself to add to the draft of a decree. The draft for newer debt securities is based on the principle of unrestricted enforceability(§ l). This seems to me to be particularly necessary for the debt instruments established by the authorities of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. in the case of judgments of the courts of the Protectorate as well as foreign judgments on Versosseş against the so-called ordre public (§ 328 No.4 Reichs-Zpo) the execution in the old kingdom is refused. In the case of unlimited enforcement, it goes on to say that these debt instruments of the protectorate authorities - at least in the field of the administration of justice - only in exceptional cases concern German nationals. Finally, apart from the right of opposition of the Reichsprotektor according to Article 5(5) of the Führerererresentung of 16 July 1962, the right to appeal of the Imperial Protector to German nationals is to be regarded as being contrary to the law of the Federal Court of Justice. 485), in particular the cases covered by the Enforcement Abuse Act of l3 December 1934 (Reichsgesetzbl.I p.1234). Debt instruments which can be enforced under the Reichs-Zpo or an execution order are to a large extent also established by administrative authorities over claims of a public nature. For older debt instruments established before the unification of the various territories with the German Reich, the draft in section 7 adheres to the previous principles (e.g. the former German-Austrian legal protection contract of 21.6.1923, RGBl). 1924 II 7.55 ff.; No.II.1 of the Protocol on the former German-Czechoslovak Agreement on the Transfer of Jurisdiction of 19 December 1938, RGBl. 1939 II p.39). Apart from the fact that this is an act of foreign state power, this reluctance is already required because it must be assumed that a part of a dispute at the time did not enter into a relationship with the confidence that the final decision of the dispute could not be enforced against it.