Abstract
Austrian procedures of international co-operation in litigation are the subject of embracing regulation. Co-operation in civil matters is regulated by the Rechtshilfeerlass für bürgerliche Rechtssachen (Decree on International Co-operation in Civil Litigation) of October 29, 1951. 1 The Rechtshilfeerlass für Strafsachen of July 15, 1959,2 regulates cooperation in criminal matters. International co-operation between Austria and the United States is governed by a special decree of December 1, 1951, as amended by decree of November 24, 1955.3
The authors express their gratitude to the Honorable Dr. Viktor Hoyer, Sektionschef im Bundesministerium für Justiz, for his valuable comments.
Dr. Iur. 1912, University of Vienna ; LL.B. 1945, Brooklyn Law School ; Former Member of the Vienna Bar ; Member of the New York Bar .
LL.B. 1946, LL .M. 1949, University of Amsterdam; M.A. 1953 , LL.B. 1958, Columbia University ; Professor of Law, Columbia University; Director, Project on International Procedure, Columbia University .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
1951 Amtsblatt Der Justizverwaltung [hereinafter Jabl.] NO. 12. The leading annotated version is Hoyer & Chlanda, Rechtshilfeerlass Für Bürgerliche Rechtssachen (Vienna 1952, publ. by Manz) [hereinafter Hoyer & Chlanda].
1959 Jabl. NO. 16. See generally Drechsler & Linke, Rechtshilfeverkehr Mit Dem Ausland IN Strafsachen (Vienna 1961, published by the State Printing Office).
1951 Jabl. NO. 14, as amended 1955 Jabl. NO. 2; Hoyer & Chlanda 225-29. Drechsler & Linke, op. cit. supra note 2, at 588-95.
All references to the Zivilprozessordnung are to the sixth annotated edition by Fetter, published by Manz in 1958 in Vienna [hereinafter Fetter].
Fetter, op. cit. supra note 4, at 1-73.
All references to the Strafprozessordnung are to the fourth annoted edition by Tlapek & Serini, published by Manz in 1960.
See Hellbling, Kommentar ZU Den Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetzen (Vienna 1953).
Jurisdiktionsnorm § 38(2) (3).
Rhe. Ziv. §35(1) (specifically providing that, in view of actual practice, the United States practices reciprocity). See also rhe. Ziv. Appendix I, No. 22; Hoyer & Chlanda, op. cit. supra note 1, at 82.
Zivilprozessordnung § 121(1) (last sentence).
Verordnung des Bundesministeriums für Justiz of Dec. 23, 1960, Bundesgesetzblatt [hereinafter Bgbl.] NO. 10 (1961).
Rhe. Ziv. §§ 17(1), 44(2).
Rhe. Ziv. § 42.
Rhe. Ziv. § 13(c) provides that transmittal of a request for service by the president of of the court directly to the Austrian mission abroad is proper only in the circumstances described in text. Although this would leave open the possibility of having the request transmitted through the Ministry of Justice in other circumstances, the authoritative comment to this provision states that, if the conditions stated in the text are not met, service must be made through the foreign authorities or by mail. Hoyer & Chlanda, op. cit. supra note 1, at 10.
See note 14 supra. The Decree on Co-operation with the United States of Dec. 1, 1951, as amended, supra note 3, § 1, provides that requests for service should not be submitted to American authorities. This provision was inspired by the reluctance of American courts to comply with foreign requests for service. See ch. 1, text at notes 36-39. The measures of reform adopted in the United States require reconsideration of this provision. In any event, under existing provisions, service in the United States should be made by mail. Cf. Rhe. Ziv. § 48(2).
Zivilprozessordnung § 121(2), iuncto § 116.
Zivilprozessordnung § 108.
For a suggestion that this procedure be used, see Baeck, Rechtshilfe in den Vereinigten Staaten, 7 Oesterreichische Juristenzeitung 589-90 (1952).
Strafprozessordnung § 80.
Zivilprozessordnung § 277(1).
Zivilprozessordnung §§ 282-287.
See, e.g., Zivilprozessordnung §§ 284, 285, and 286.
Zivilprozessordnung § 284(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 277(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 277(3).
rhe. Zw. §51(1).
rhe. Zw. §51(2).
Rhe. Ziv. §51(5).
rhe. Zw. §51(4).
Decree of December 1, 1951, as amended, §§ 2-4, supra note 3.
Decree of December 1, 1951 as amended, §§ 3-4, and Appendices I and II, supra note 3. If the commission is directed to a commissioner familiar with Austrian practice, it will ordinarily be preferable to give a general description of the probandum rather than provide written interrogatories. This will leave the commissioner desirable leeway in his examination of the witnesses.
Decree of December 1, 1951, as amended, § 3, supra note 3.
See Hoyer & Chlanda, op. cit. supra note 1, at 83. Austrian consuls, rather than hear witnesses under oath, do from time to time invite “informants” to appear voluntarily and make unsworn statements. This practice is based on a Mitteilung (communication) of the Ministry of Justice. See Hoyer & Chlanda, op. cit. supra note 1, at 83. However, since a Mitteilung is not a legislative measure binding on the citizens, but merely an opinion of the Ministry, it is most doubtful that such “informative statements” are admissible evidence. It is generally accepted that the enumeration of permissible means of evidence in the Zivilprozessordnung, which does not include the “hearing of an informant”, is exhaustive. See 2 Neumann, Kommentar ZU Den Zivilprozessgesetsen 975, 1000-01 (Vienna 1927-28); 2 Pollak, System DES Oesterreichischen Zivilprozessrechtes 646 et seq. (2d. rev. ed. 1930-32). The lonely dissenter is Sperl, Lehrbuch DER Bürgerlichen Rechtspflege 449 (Vienna 1925-30). Two decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court stress the generally accepted view: SZ VI1/97 and Rspr. 13/70 (1930).
See generally ch. 1, text at notes 33-34. In the extensive experience of an attorney for the Austrian Consulate in New York, no witness ever failed to appear voluntarily. See Baeck, Die Anwendung des § 283 ZPO. im Rechtshilfeverkehr mit den Usa, 82 Juristische Blätter 250, 253 (1960).
Decision of Oct. 11, 1950, 5 Oesterreichische Juristenzeitung NO. 551, at 570 (1950) (deposition before commissioner in England).
The court may also order that the litigant present the request for co-operation in the taking of testimony directly to the foreign authority. Zivilprozessordnung §283(1). For opposition to this procedure, see Baeck, Die Anwendung des § 283 ZPO. im Rechtshilfeverkehr mit den Usa, 82 Juristische Blätter 250, 251 (1960). But cf. Smit & Miller, International CO-Operation IN Civil Litigation — A Report ON Practices AND Procedures Prevailing IN THE United States 15 (Milan 1961). Since article 283 of the Zivilprozessordnung permits the testimony to be taken pursuant to stipulation, it would seem to provide an efficacious and inexpensive method for obtaining testimonial evidence in the United States. It has been suggested, however, that if the parties are agreed on who will act as examiner, the Austrian court may send the request directly to the examiner. Baeck, supra at 252.
See Baeck, supra note 36, at 252.
Zivilprozessordnung §§ 303-307 (production by party), §§ 308-309 (production by third person.)
Zivilprozessordnung § 303(2).
Zivilprozessordnung § 304(1). Documents are common to both parties it they have been drafted in their mutual interest, record their legal relationship, or are writings between participants in a legal act. Zivilprozessordnung §§ 304(2), 593(2).
For further elaboration, see Zivilprozessordnung § 305.
Zivilprozessordnung §307(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 307(2).
Zivilprozessordnung §308(1). On what documents qualify as “common”, see note 40 upra.
See ch. 1, text at note 45.
Zivilprozessordnung § 293(2).
Zivilprozessordnung § 311(2). On Austrian authentication procedures generally, see Conférence DE LA Haye DE Droit International Privé, Légalisation DES Actes Public Etrangers — Exposé PAR Pays II. Autriche (1959). Chain certification are permitted. Ibid.
Conférence DE LA Haye DE Droit International Privé, op. cit. supra note 47.
See also Treaty between the United States and Austria of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights, June 19, 1928, art. XVIII, 47 Stat. 1890 (Part 2, 1933), providing that consuls may certify and authenticate “unilateral acts, deeds and testamentary dispositions of their countrymen, and also contracts to which a countryman is a party.” Such documents must be received in evidence as properly authenticated. Ibid.
Zivilprozessordnung § 217(2). See generally Baeck, Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law in Austria, Sec. Int’l & Comp. L., Aba, Proceedings 167 (1960); Baeck, Die Praktische Anwendung fremden Rechtes in den Usa und Oesterreich, 2 Zeitschrift FüR Rechtsver-Gleichung 85, 88-92 (1961).
See Baeck, supra note 50, at 170.
Decree of December 1, 1951, as amended, § 8(1), supra note 3.
See Baeck, supra note 50, at 170-71; Seidl-Hohenveldern, American-Austrian Private International Law 109-10 (1963).
Baeck, supra note 50, at 170; Decree of 1951, as amended, § 5(1), supra note 3.
For the view that, in the absence of a statutory prohibition, governmental objection to service by private persons is unavailing, see Smit, International Co-operation in Litigation: Some Observations on the Roles of International Law and Reciprocity, 9 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 137, 145-47 (1962). Dr. Baeck shares the view of the Austrian government.
Zivilprozessordnung § 101(1). Zivilprozessordnung § 88(1) regulates service by mail.
Zivilprozessordnung § 101(1). If none of the places indicated in Article 101(1) exist, service may be made wherever the addressee can be found.
Zivilprozessordnung § 102(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 102(2).
Zivilprozessordnung § 103(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 104.
Zivilprozessordnung § 106(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 106(2).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Zivilprozessordnung § 109.
Rhe. Ziv. Appendix I no. 22.
Rhe. Ziv. § 36(2) (b).
Rhe. Ziv. §36(1).
Rhe. Ziv. § 37(1). See Hoyer & Chlanda, op. cit. supra note 1, at 28-29
Rhe. Ziv. §37(2). See Hoyer & Chlanda, loc. cit.
Zivilprozessordnung § 110.
Ibid.
Rhe. Ziv. §38(1).
See Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit. supra note 53, at 113.
The German text of Article XVIII authorizes the consul to take Erklärungen (declarations), a term translated as depositions in the English version. This difference raises the question of whether American consuls may take depositions in Austria in accordance with American practice or may receive only unilateral statements not under oath that cannot qualify as depositions. Apparently, the Austrian government takes the latter position. For the view, not shared by Dr. Baeck, that international law provides no basis on which an objection against the taking of evidence before private persons can be grounded, see Smit, International Co-operation in Litigation: Some Observations on the Roles of International Law and Reciprocity, 9 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 137, 145-46 (1962).
Rhe. Ziv. § 36; rhe. Ziv. Appendix I No. 22.
Rhe. Ziv. § 36(2) (b).
Zivilprozessordnung § 337(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 340(2).
Zivilprozessordnung §§341(1), 289(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 280(1).
Zivilprozessordnung §§ 343(1), 211.
The witness is requested to sign the record. Cf. Zivilprozessordnung § 212, Fetter, op. cit. supra 4, at 260 n.l.
Rhe. Ziv. §36(1).
Zivilprozessordnung § 333(1).
See text at notes 38-44 supra.
This article provides that the co-operation requested shall be provided in accordance with the laws of the court to which the request is addressed.
See text at notes 38-44 supra.
Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch §431 (ownership), §451 (mortgages), §481 (easements). For details, see Law on Groundbooks, Fed. Law Gazette 39/1955.
Handelsgesetz §§ 8-16 and implementing regulation set forth in Demelius, Handelsgesetzbuch 605-80 (Manz ed. 1957).
Zivilprozessordnung § 292. On the notaries generally, see Notariatsordnung (Wagner, Manz 1963).
On Austrian notaries and prerequisites to their appointment, see Baeck, Status and Autonomy of Austrian Attorneys at Law, 28 Tul. L. Rev. 468, 470–71 (1954).
On authentication of copies of Austrian official documents generally, see Conferénce DE LA Haye DE Droit International Privé, op. cit. supra note 46.
Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Constitution) §§ 48 and 49, as implemented by Law of December 7, 1920, Bgbl. NO. 33.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1965 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baeck, P.L., Smit, H. (1965). International Co-Operation in Litigation: Austria. In: Smit, H. (eds) International Co-Operation in Litigation: Europe. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9208-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9208-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8487-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9208-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive