#5240 - Princess Olga V. Weisz - Conflict of Laws BCL

Princess Olga v. Weisz

Facts

Princess Olga Paley was married to the Grand Duke Paul of Russia without the consent of the Tsar. The marriage being, therefore, morganatic, she did not become a member of the Romanoff family. This result saved her property from being confiscated under a Russian Decree confiscating the property in Russia of members of that family. The Princess had in 1917 at her house in Tsarskoe Selo, near St. Petersburg, or Petrograd, afterwards Leningrad, a quantity of valuable furniture and works of art, admittedly her property. In 1928 she discovered this property in England, and issued a writ claiming it against the persons in possession of it. They replied that they or their principals had bought that property from the Government, who, in 1924, had been recognized by the British Government as the de jure Government of Russia, and as the de facto Government in 1918 or the end of 1917. That Russian Government had, in the contract of sale, described the property as “nationalized property”; and the Russian Government claimed, and the defendants alleged, that by the law of Russia the goods claimed were the property of the Russian Government.

They did so for two reasons which the judge below has held to be valid. The first is by the Decree of March 18, 1923 (No. 245), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and of the Council of People's Commissaries, s. 5 of which is relevant: “Works of art, antiques, and articles of historical interest being in museums and depositories, as forming part of the Museum Fund and being safeguarded by State means, are recognised to be State property.”

The second title in the Russian Government alleged by the defendants is under s. 1 of Decree No. 111 of the Council of People's Commissaries, signed by Lenin as chairman of that body. That section reads: There is declared "the property of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic all the moveable property of citizens fled outside the confines of the Republic, or hiding themselves up to the present time, and of whatever consisting, and wherever situated."

Holding

Scrutton LJ

Being the property of the Russian State, the Russian Government has sold them; and I can find nothing in the Russian Decrees enabling their former owner to complain in these or any Courts of the sale by the Russian Government.

The second title in the Russian Government alleged by the defendants is under s. 1 of Decree No. 111 of the Council of People's Commissaries, signed by Lenin as chairman of that body. That section reads: There is declared "the property of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic all the moveable property of citizens fled outside the confines of the Republic, or hiding themselves up to the present time, and of whatever consisting, and wherever situated." It is clear on the evidence, and is admitted by the Princess, that she escaped from Russia without a passport; and I am satisfied that this is "fleeing from Russia" within the meaning of the Decree, and that thereby her property in Russia became automatically confiscated and the property of the Russian State without any necessity of further legal proceedings.

To these principles we must add that: 'Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the Courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of another done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.'" Two further authorities of the Supreme Court of the United States are cited in support of that proposition. This...