Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Civil Claims of Foreign Sovereigns for Lost Taxes: The Big Tobacco Cases and the Revenue Rule

  • Articles
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article analyses some US federal court decisions which by relying on the so-called revenue rule rejected civil claims of foreign sovereigns against major tobacco companies based on tax losses suffered due to the smuggling of contraband tobacco products into the claimants’ territories. The revenue rule deals with the domestic court’s jurisdiction to enforce penal, revenue or other public law claims of foreign states. First, the article discusses the alleged rationale and the unclear scope of the globally accepted revenue rule. Then, it turns to the question whether the revenue rule was rightly applied by the courts to the civil claims of the foreign sovereigns. Finally, it questions the alleged rationale of the revenue rule and argues for its abandonment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 424 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2005).

  2. Inter alia, RJR Nabisco, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and Japan Tobacco.

  3. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68.

  4. Cf., 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c): ‘Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit…’.

  5. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

  6. The European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 355 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2004).

  7. European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc., 186 F.Supp.2d 231 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). Cf., however, The European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 150 F.Supp.2d 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), where the court of first instance declined to apply the revenue rule (see ibid., at 486 et seq.), but negated a standing of the European Community under RICO, whereupon the European Community filed a new suit in European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc. For further details as to the complex case history, see The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 129 et seq.

  8. 268 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001).

  9. 341 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2003).

  10. 123 S.Ct. 513 (2002).

  11. 124 S.Ct. 1075 (2004).

  12. 125 S.Ct. 1766 (2005).

  13. 125 S.Ct. 1968 (2005).

  14. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 1, at 2.

  15. 126 S.Ct. 1045 (2006).

  16. L. Collins, ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I, 13th edn. (London, Sweet & Maxwell 2000) para. 5R-018.

  17. Cf., e. g., for Australia: Her Majesty’s Attorney-General v. Heinemann Publishers (1988) 165 CLR 30 (HC) 40; for Canada: Brown, Gow, Wilson v. Beleggings-Societeit N.V. (1961) 29 DLR (2d) 673 (HC Ontario) 707; for England: Government of India v. Taylor [1955] AC 491 (HL) 507; for Hong Kong: Nanus Asia Co. Inc. v. Standard Chartered Bank [1990] 1 HKLR 396 (HCHK) 411; for Ireland: Peter Buchanan Ltd. v. McVey [1954] IR 89 (HC) 100; for the Isle of Man: Re Tucker [1988] LRC (Comm) 995 (HC) 1002 (Hytner JA); for Jersey: Re Tucker [1988] Fin. L.R. 378 (RC) 389; for New Zealand: Attorney-General for the United Kingdom v. Wellington Newspapers Ltd. [1988] 1 NZLR 129 (HC) 150; for South Africa: Commissioner of Taxes v. Macfarland, 1965 (1) SA 470 (WLD) 471; for the United States: Banco Frances e Brasileiro SA v. John Doe No. 1, 36 N.Y.2d 592 (1975) 604.

  18. For judicial criticism of the revenue rule de lege ferenda in common law jurisdictions, see, e. g., Williams & Humbert v. W. & H. Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd. [1986] AC 368 (HL) 428; Re Sefel Geophysical Ltd. [1989] 1 WWR 251 (Alb QB) 260 et seq.

  19. See notably American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (St. Paul, American Law Institute Publishers 1934) ch. 12, § 610: ‘No action can be maintained on a right created by the law of a foreign state as a method of furthering its own governmental interests’, see also § 443 and § 611; ibid., Restatement of the Law Second — Conflict of Laws, Vol. I (St. Paul, American Law Institute Publishers 1971) ch. 4, § 89: ‘No action will be entertained on a foreign penal cause of action’; ibid., Restatement of the Law Third — The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Vol. I (St. Paul, American Law Institute Publishers 1986) ch. 8, § 483: ‘Courts in the United States are not required to recognize or to enforce judgements for the collection of taxes, fines, or penalties rendered by the courts of other states.’

  20. Banco Frances e Brasileiro, loc. cit. n. 17, at 596 et seq.; United States v. Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 1997) 550 in n. 4; Attorney-General of Canada v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 103 F.Supp.2d 134 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) 140 in n. 3; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 479.

  21. Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1770, 1774 et seq., 1781.

  22. The enforcement of revenue and penal law of sister states has traditionally been denied, see Henry v. Sargeant, 40 Am.Dec. 146 (N.H. 1843); State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co. of New Orleans, 8 S.Ct. 1370 (1888); State of Arkansas v. Bowen, 20 D.C. 291 (1891); State of Maryland v. Turner, 132 N.Y.S. 173 (1911); Gulledge Bros Lumber Co. v. Wenatchee Land Co., 142 N.W. 305 (Mn 1913); State of Colorado v. Harbeck, 232 N.Y. 71 (1921); Re Bliss’ Estate, 202 N.Y.S. 185 (1923); Moore v. Mitchell, 30 F.2d 600 (2d Cir. 1929); Re Martin’s Will, 255 N.Y. 359 (1931); Re Pressed Steel Car Co. of New Jersey, 20 F.Supp. 1016 (W.D. Pa 1937); Hamilton County Treasurer v. Hartzell, 55 Pa D. & C. 100 (1945); State of Ohio v. Flower, 59 Pa D. & C. 14 (1947); City of Detroit v. Girard Packing Co., 56 A.2d 263 (Pa 1948); City of Detroit v. Proctor, 61 A.2d 412 (De 1948); Wayne County v. American Steel Export, 277 A.D. 585 (N.Y. 1950) 587; Wayne County v. Foster & Reynolds Co., 101 N.Y.S.2d 526 (1950); Re Film Classics, 152 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1956); City of Philadelphia v. Cohen, 11 N.Y.2d 401 (1962), cert denied, 83 S.Ct. 306 (1962); Hamm v. Berrey, 419 S.W.2d 401 (Tx 1967). The full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, though, requires US states at least to enforce tax judgments of other sister states, see Milwaukee County v. ME White Co., 56 S.Ct. 229 (1935). Moreover, for a general duty to enforce sister state revenue laws, see Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Rodgers, 193 S.W.2d 919 (St. Louis C.A., Mo 1946); State of Ohio v. Arnett, 234 S.W.2d 722 (Ky 1950); State of Oklahoma v. Neely, 282 S.W.2d 150 (Ar 1955); City of Detroit v. Gould, 146 N.E.2d 61 (Il 1957); State of California v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 260 S.W.2d 821 (Mo 1953); Pennhurst State School v. Goodhartz, 200 A.2d 112 (N.J. 1964); State Tax Commission v. Cord, 404 P.2d 422 (Nv 1965); Nelson v. Minnesota Income Tax Division, 429 P.2d 324 (Wy 1967); Buckley v. Huston, 291 A.2d 129 (N.J. 1972).

  23. State of Oklahoma, loc. cit. n. 22, at 151; Sun Oil Company v. Wortmann, 108 S.Ct. 2217 (1988) 2132 in n. 3; R.E. Smith, ‘The Nonrecognition of Foreign Tax Judgments — International Tax Evasion’, U. Ill. L.R. (1981) p. 241 at p. 256.

  24. Cf., for Belgium: Trib. civ. Charleroi 8 January 1930, Clunet 1930, 1097; CA Bruxelles, 18 December 1973, Pas. belg. 1974 II 62; for Denmark: ÖLD 23 October 1924, UfR 1925, 176; for France: Cass. civ. 3 June 1928, Clunet 1929, 385; CA Aix-en-Provence 25 April 1988, Clunet 1988, 779; Cass. civ. 2 May 1990, Rev. crit. 1991, 378; Cass. civ. 29 May 1990, Rev. crit. 1991, 386; for Italy: CA Genova 14 January 1932, Riv. dir. int. 1932, 432; Trib. Milano 11 February 1985, Riv. dir. int. priv. proc. 1987, 346; for Liechtenstein: FL OGH 9 September 1985, IPRax 1987, 379; FL OGH 31 March 1987, IPRax 1990, 409; for Luxembourg: Trib. Comm. Luxem. 26 January 1990, J. d. Trib. 1991, 483; for Austria: OGH 29 October 1935, SZ 17 No. 149, p. 424; OLG Wien 6 February 1980, ZfRV 1981, 304; for Sweden: HD 31 December 1924, NJA 1924-I, 635; HD 31 March 1961, NJA 1961-I, 145; for Switzerland: BG 23 January 1953, BGE 79 II 87, 95; BG 2 February 1954, BGE 80 II 53, 61 et seq.; for Germany: KG 19 November 1908, OLGE 20, 91; OLG Hamm 27 April 1912, OLGE 25, 333, 335; RG 16 March 1928, IPRspr 1928 No. 37, p. 59 et seq.; RG 5 June 1931, IPRspr 1931 No. 3; OLG Hamburg 8 May 1951, JZ 1951, 444, 445; OLG Hamburg 25 November 1959, IPRspr 1958/1959 No. 61, p. 242, 243; LG Offenburg 30 December 1960, IPRspr 1960/1961 No. 172; BSG 26 January 1983, BSGE 54, 250; AG Münster 23 November 1994, IPRspr 1994 No. 146; AG Leverkusen 14 February 1995, IPRspr 1995 No. 5; OLG Hamm 21 March 1994, RIW 1994, 513; BGH 4 October 2005, WM 2005, 2274. It appears that only the Dutch courts are prepared not to follow the revenue rule, see notably Hof ’s-Gravenhage 3 August 1953, NJ 1953 No. 589; Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 29 June 1954, NJ 1955 No. 24; Hof ’s-Gravenhage 3 November 1955, NJ 1956 No. 135, Rb Arnhem 23 May 1996, NIPR 1996 No. 437; Hof Arnhem 6 July 1999, NIPR 2000 No. 41.

  25. For a detailed account and analysis of the rationale underlying the revenue rule, see A. Dutta, Die Durchsetzung öffentlichrechtlicher Forderungen ausländischer Staaten durch deutsche Gerichte (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2006).

  26. Cf., KG 19 November 1908, loc. cit. n. 24; OLG Hamm 27 April 1912, loc. cit. n. 24, at 334 et seq.; CA Genova 14 January 1932, loc. cit. n. 24; Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 16 January 1953, NJ 1954 No. 301, p. 586; Government of India, loc. cit. n. 17, at 511; Hof Amsterdam 9 April 1959, NJ 1960 No. 149, p. 413; LG Offenburg 30 December 1960, loc. cit. n. 24, at 551; United States of America v. Harden (1963) 41 DLR (2d) 721 (SC Canada) 724; Macfarland, loc. cit. n. 24, at 473; Attorney-General of New Zealand v. Ortiz [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 (CA) 231; BSG 26 January 1983, loc. cit. n. 24, at 255; FL OGH 31 March 1987, loc. cit. n. 24, at 414; Re Tucker, loc. cit. n. 17, at 1002; Re Tucker, loc. cit. n. 17, at 392 et seq.

  27. Cf., Moore, loc. cit. n. 22, at 604; State of Ohio v. Flower, 59 Pa D. & C. 14 (1947) 16; Buchanan, loc. cit. n. 17, at 105 et seq., aff’d [1954] IR 114 (SC); Government of India, loc. cit. n. 17, at 511; Harden, loc. cit. n. 26, at 724 et seq.; Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 84 S.Ct. 923 (1964) 945; Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 433 F.Supp. 410 (D. Or 1977) 411; Heinemann, loc. cit. n. 17, at 43 et seq.; Stringham v. Dubois [1993] 3 WWR 273 (CA Alberta) 281; United States v. Boots, 80 F.3d 580 (1st Cir. 1996) 587; United States v. Pierce, 224 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2000) 163; Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 112 et seq., 122; Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1158; United States v. Pasquantino II, 336 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2003) 327; Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1779.

  28. Cf., KG 19 November 1908, loc. cit. n. 24, at 91 et seq.; Government of India, loc. cit. n. 17, at 511; BGH 18 February 1957, BGHZ 23, 333, 337 et seq.; LG Offenburg 30 December 1960, loc. cit. n. 24, at 551; Sabbatino, loc. cit. n. 27, at 950 et seq.; Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Gilbertson, 597 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979) 1165; Trib. Milano 11 February 1985, loc. cit. n. 24, at 347; Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1157; Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1779.

  29. For an attempt to systematise the case law, see Dutta, op. cit. n. 25, at pp. 28–141.

  30. Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 (KB) 343; already alike, albeit less succinct Boucher v. Lawson (1735) 95 Eng Rep 53 (KB) 55 et seq.

  31. Cf., e. g., Huntington v. Attrill [1893] AC 150 (PC) 155: ‘to decline jurisdiction in suits somewhat loosely described as penal’; The Attorney-General for Canada v. Williams Schulze & Co. (1901) 9 SLT 4 (OH) 4 et seq.: ‘the suit was truly a Revenue suit’; Buchanan, loc. cit. n. 17, at 102: ‘the Courts of our country will not enforce the revenue claim of a foreign country’, and ibid, at 104: ‘the enforcement of the right claimed would indirectly involve the execution of the revenue law of another country, and serve a revenue demand’; Regazzoni v. KC Sethia (1944) Ltd. [1958] AC 301 (HL) 318: ‘an English court will not enforce the penal or revenue laws of another country at the suit of that country’; Rossano v. Manufacturers’ Life Insurance Co. [1963] 2 QB 352 (QBD) 376: ‘the English court will not … enforce directly of indirectly a foreign revenue law or claim’; Nanus loc cit. n. 17, at 411: ‘unacceptable enforcement of a foreign law occurs … where a … party attempts … to vindicate or assert the right of a foreign state’; Re Van deMark (1989) 68 OR (2d) 379 (HC) 384: ‘would be to enforce indirectly a claim for taxes by a foreign state’ [emphasis added].

  32. Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1775.

  33. Ibid., at 1779; J. von Hein, ‘Eintreibung europ…ischer Steuern und Z…lle mit Hilfe US-amerikanischer Gerichte…, RIW (2001) p. 249 at p. 255; E.J. Farnam, ‘Racketeering, RICO and the Revenue Rule in Attorney General of Canada v. R.J. Reynolds — Civil RICO Claims for Foreign Tax Law Violations’, 77 Wash. L.R. (2002) p. 843 at p. 856; A. Dutta, ‘Keine zivilrechtliche Durchsetzung ausländischer Zölle und Steuern durch US-amerikanische Gerichte’, IPRax (2004) p. 446 at p. 447; see also Pierce, loc. cit. n. 27, at 166: ‘But without evidence that Canada imposes duty on imported liquor in the first place, the government cannot prove a scheme to defraud the Canadian government’; Pasquantino II, loc. cit. n. 27, at 331: ‘Thus, that the property at issue in the Defendant’s wire fraud scheme belonged to the foreign governments by virtue of those governments’ respective revenue laws is merely incidental to prosecution under the federal wire fraud statute.’

  34. BGH 18 February 1957, loc. cit. n. 28, at 336 et seq.; Brown, Gow, Wilson, loc. cit. n. 17, at 709; Sabbatino, loc. cit. n. 27, at 932 et seq., 950 et seq.; Williams & Humbert, loc. cit. n. 18, at 429, 440 et seq.; with the same result, Ital. Cass. 14 November 1972, Riv. dir. int. priv. proc. 1972, 101; Cass. Civ. 1 July 1981, Rev. crit. 1982, 336.

  35. Kahler v. Midland Bank LD [1950] AC 24 (HL) 36; Re Claim by Helbert Wagg & Co. Ltd. [1956] Ch. 323 (Ch.D.) 351.

  36. Regazzoni, loc. cit. n. 31, 322; with the same result, RG 28 June 1918, RGZ 93, 182; BGH 21 December 1960, BGHZ 34, 169; BGH 24 May 1962, NJW 1962, 1436; BGH 22 June 1972, BGHZ 59, 82; BGH 8 February 1984, NJW 1984, 1746.

  37. Henry v. Sargeant, 40 Am.Dec. 146 (N.H. 1843) 147; Banco Frances e Brasileiro, loc. cit. n. 17, at 599; with the same result, BGH 20 November 1990, NJW 1991, 634; BGH 20 October 1992, IPRspr 1992 No. 59.

  38. Government of India v. Taylor [1954] Ch. 131 (CA) 151.

  39. Re Visser [1928] Ch. 877 (Ch.D.) 883 (Tomlin J.); Rodgers, loc. cit. n. 22, at 926; Buchanan, loc. cit. n. 17, at 100; Government of India, loc. cit. n. 17, at 505, 514; Regazzoni v. KC Sethia (1944) Ltd. [1956] 2 QB 490 (CA) 515 et seq.; Macfarland, loc. cit. n. 17, at 472; Brokaw v. Seatrain UK Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 476 (CA) 482, 483; Buckley v. Huston, 291 A.2d 129 (N.J. 1972) 130; Banco Frances e Brasileiro, loc. cit. n. 17, at 597; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 479; Pasquantino II, loc. cit. n. 27, at 329; Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1777; W.A. Graunke, ‘Conflict of Laws — Enforcement of Revenue Laws of Foreign States’, 5 Wis. L.R. (1928–1929) p. 494 at p. 496; ‘Note’, 29 Col. L.R. (1929) p. 782 at p. 783; ‘Note’, 41 Ill. L.R. (1946’1947) p. 439 at p. 440; ‘Note’, 50 Col. L.R. (1950) p. 490; F.A. Mann, ‘Prerogative Rights of Foreign States and the Conflict of Laws’, 40 Grotius Society (1954) p. 25 at p. 26 et seq.; ibid., Studies in International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1973) p. 493 et seq.; E. Kahn, ‘Enforcement of Foreign Revenue Law’, 71 SALJ (1954) p. 275 at p. 276 et seq.; R.L. Strecker, ‘Can a State Make a Nonresident Personally Liable for Taxes? — The Dewey Doctrine Dissected’, 23 U. Cin. L.R. (1954) p. 135 at p. 136 et seq.; J.-G. Castel, ‘Foreign Tax Claims and Judgments in Canadian Courts’, 42 Can. Bar. R. (1964) p. 277 at pp. 292, 298 et seq.; ibid., ‘The Erosion of the Foreign Public law Exception — Recent Canadian Developments’, in J.A.R. Nafziger, et al., eds., Law and justice in a multistate world — Essays in honor of Arthur T. von Mehren (New York, Transnational Publishers 2002) p. 243 at p. 245 et seq.; L.V. Robertson, ‘Extraterritorial Enforcement of Tax Obligations’, 7 Ariz. L.R. (1965-1966) p. 219 at p. 222; A.A. Ehrenzweig, Private International Law (Leyden, Sijthoff 1967) p. 165; T.B. Stoel, ‘The Enforcement of Foreign Non-Criminal Penal and Revenue Judgments in England and the United States’, 16 ICLQ (1967) p. 663 at p. 671; G. Couchez, ‘Note’, Rev. crit. (1977) p. 123 at p. 125; H.W. Greenberg, ‘Extrastate Enforcement of Tax Claims and Administrative Tax Determinations under the Full Faith and Credit Clause’, 43 Brook. L.R. (1977) p. 630 at p. 632; A.F. Lowenfeld, ‘Public law in the International Arena’, 163 Recueil des Cours (1979) p. 313 at p. 324; Smith, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 246; P.B. Carter, ‘Rejection of Foreign Law: Some Private International Law Inhibitions’, 55 BYBIL (1984) p. 111 at p. 115; H. Batiffol, ‘Note’, Rev. crit. (1985) p. 104 at p. 107; A. Huet, ‘Note’, Clunet (1988) p. 785 at p. 786; H. Batiffol and P. Lagarde, Droit international privé, Vol. 1, 8th edn. (Paris, Pichon & Durand-Auzias 1993) p. 418; P. North and J.J. Fawcett, Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th edn. (London, Butterworths 1999) p. 110; Collins, op. cit. n. 16, at para. 5–022; J.G. Collier, Conflict of Laws, 3rd edn. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2001) p. 369; W.J. Kovatch, ‘Recognizing Foreign Tax Judgments — An Argument for the Revocation of the Revenue Rule’, 22 Hous. J. Int’l L. (1999–2000) p. 265 at pp. 267, 274 et seq.; W.S. Dodge, ‘Breaking the Public law Taboo’, 43 Harv. Int’l L.J. (2002) p. 161 at p. 170 et seq.; Farnam, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 866; V. Black, ‘Old and in the Way? The Revenue Rule and Big Tobacco’, 38 Can. B.L.J. (2003) p. 1 at p. 20; G. Kegel and K. Schurig, Internationales Privatrecht, 9th edn. (Munich, C.H. Beck Verlag 2004) p. 1092 et seq.

  40. CA Aix-en-Provence 25 April 1988, loc. cit. n. 24, at 783; P. Baker, ‘The Transnational Enforcement of Tax Liabilities’, 16 Stan. L.R. (1963’1964) p. 202 at p. 208; G. van Hecke, ‘Foreign Public law in the Courts’, Rev. belg. dr. int. (1969) p. 62 at p. 65; P. Lalive, ‘L’application du droit public étranger — Rapport préliminaire’, 56 Annuaire IDI (1975) p. 157 at p. 179; B. Audit, ‘Note’, Rev. crit. (1991) p. 380 at p. 381; H.W. Baade, ‘The Operation of Foreign Public law’, in R. David, et al., eds., International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol. III (Tübingen, Mohr 1991) ch. 12, p. 38; ibid., ‘The Operation of Foreign Public law’, 30 Tex. Int’l L.J. (1995) p. 429 at p. 478; E. Eichenhofer, Internationales Sozialrecht (Munich, C.H. Beck Verlag 1994) para. 639; F.D. Strebbel, ‘The Enforcement of Foreign Judgements and Foreign Public law’, 21 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L.J. (1999) p. 55 at p. 62; Farnam, loc. cit. n. 33, at pp. 867 et seq., 869 et seq.

  41. J. Dehaussy, ‘Le statut de l’Etat étranger demandeur sur la for français — Droit international coutumier et droit interne’, Journal du droit international (1991) p. 109 at p. 110; Dodge, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 165; A. Dormann Bessenich, Der ausländische Staat als Kläger (Basle/Frankfurt, Helbing und Lichtenhahn 1993) p. 48. In the same direction, M. Jenn, Illegal nach Deutschland verbrachtes ausländisches Staatsvermögen (Berlin, Rhombos-Verlag 2004) pp. 15, 31 et seq., who speaks of the revenue rule as relating to ‘Unklagbarkeit’ of foreign public law claims. Similarly, C.G. van der Plas, De taak van de rechter en het IPR (Deventer, Kluwer 2005) p. 293 et seq., who reduces the revenue rule to the ‘vreemde staat als eisende partij’.

  42. Buchanan, loc. cit. n. 17; endorsed by the English House of Lords in Government of India, loc. cit. n. 17, at 510 et seq.

  43. [2000] ILPr 8 (CA) 11 et seq.

  44. In the same direction, P.E. Nygh and M. Davies, Conflict of Laws in Australia, 7th edn. (Chatswood, LexisNexis Butterworths 2002) p. 339: ‘the forum must decline to entertain any suit or application that has the substantial effect of enforcing a foreign revenue claim’; J. Basedow, et al., ‘Foreign Revenue Claims in European Courts’, 6 YPIL (2004) p. 1 at p. 66: ‘it appears that courts invoke the non-application of foreign revenue laws whenever the amount of money pursued by the plaintiff is designed to flow either directly or indirectly to a foreign public treasury’; cf., also Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1777.

    Google Scholar 

  45. The modesty of the requirements for an increase in the likelihood of enforcement is shown, e. g., by Rossano, loc. cit. n. 31; Re Van deMark, loc. cit. n. 31; Nanus, loc. cit. n. 17; Bank of Ireland v. Meeneghan [1994] 3 IR 111 (HC).

  46. Note, however, Re State of Norway’s Application (Nos. 1 and 2) [1990] 1 AC 723 (HL) 808, according to which the revenue rule does not relate to the domestic courts’ jurisdiction but only to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

  47. Rodgers, loc. cit. n. 22, at 926; ‘Note’, 29 Col. L.R. (1929) p. 782 at p. 786; B.M. Cooperman, ‘Conflict of Laws — Enforcement of Tax Claims Arising under Foreign Law’, 34 Cal. L.R. (1946) p. 754; M. Mann, ‘Foreign Revenue Laws and the English Conflict of Laws’, 3 ICLQ (1954) p. 465 at p. 466 et seq.; Castel, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 293.

  48. Mann, loc. cit. n. 47, at p. 466; Castel, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 293; F.A. Mann, ‘The International Enforcement of Public Rights’, 19 NYU J. Int’l L. & P. (1987) p. 603 at p. 619; A. Briggs, ‘The Revenue Rule in the Conflict of Laws — Time for a Makeover’, Sing. J.L. Stud. (2001) p. 280 at p. 282; ibid., The Conflict of Laws (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2002) p. 40.

  49. B.L. Trott, ‘Conflict of Laws — Enforcing Tax Laws of Sister’, 47 Mich. L.R. (1948–1949) p. 796 at p. 803; Castel, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Huntington v. Attrill, 13 S.Ct. 224 (1892) 233; Huntington v. Attrill, loc. cit. n. 31, at 155; State of Maryland v. Turner, 132 N.Y.Supp. 173 (1911) 174; OGH 29 October 1935, loc. cit. n. 24, at 423; BG 23 January 1953, loc. cit. n. 24, at 95; Metal Industries (Salvage) Ltd. v. Owners of the ST ‘Harle’, 1962 S.L.T. 114 (OH) 116; Banco Frances e Brasileiro, loc. cit. n. 17, 597 et seq.; Ortiz, loc. cit. n. 26, at 238; BSG 26 January 1983, loc. cit. n. 24, at 255 et seq.; CA Aix-en-Provence 25 April 1988, loc. cit. n. 24; United States of America v. Inkley [1989] QB 255 (CA) 265; Cass. civ. 2 May 1990, loc. cit. n. 24, at 379; Cass. civ. 29 May 1990, loc. cit. n. 24, at 387; OLG Hamm 21 March 1994, loc. cit. n. 24; Bank of Ireland, loc. cit. n. 45, at 121; Gersten v. Law Society of New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 344 (CA) para. 44; cf., also KG 19 November 1908, loc. cit. n. 24; OLG Hamm 27 April 1912, loc. cit. n. 24.

  51. See Inkley, loc. cit. n. 50, at 264: ‘… the enforcement of public law may be the general umbrella under which both penal and revenue suits are embraced’; North and Fawcett, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 107; Collins, op. cit. n. 16, at para. 5–030; C. Proctor, Mann on the Legal Aspect of Money, 6th edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2005) p. 416 in n. 27.

  52. See Ortiz, loc. cit. n. 26, at 231: ‘But what are “other public laws”? I think they are laws which are “ejusdem generis” with “penal” or “revenue” laws’.

  53. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 131, 134; Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1257; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 131; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 1, at 4 et seq.; see also Mann, loc. cit. n. 48, at p. 625; ibid., ‘Zu den öffentlichrechtlichen Ansprüchen ausländischer Staaten — Ein Rückblick nach 30 Jahren’, in H.-J. Musielak and K. Schurig, eds., Festschrift für Gerhard Kegel zum 75. Geburtstag (Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne/Mainz, Kohlhammer 1987) p. 384; critically, however, Farnam, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 870 et seq.

  54. In our case, the awarding of damages.

  55. In our case, the civil basis of the asserted RICO claim.

  56. Inkley, loc. cit. n. 50, at 266.

  57. Williams Schulze, loc. cit. n. 31, at 5; Raulin v. Fischer [1911] 2 KB 93 (KBD) 97; Harden, loc. cit. n. 26, 725; CA Bruxelles 18 December 1973, Pas. belg. 1974 II 62, 62 et seq.; Gilbertson, loc. cit. n. 27, at 411; Inkley, loc. cit. n. 50, at 265.

  58. Cf., for a guarantee agreement securing a foreign public law claim: Bowen, loc. cit. n. 22; for an acknowledgment of a foreign public law claim: LG Offenburg 30 December 1960, loc. cit. n. 24; for a compromise agreement as to a foreign public law claim: Harden, loc. cit. n. 26.

  59. Harden, loc. cit. n. 26.

  60. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, 135 et seq.; J.B. Mazzola, ‘Note’, 15 N.Y. Int’l L.R. (2002) p. 101 at p. 107.

  61. 239 N.Y.Supp.2d 872 (1963), cert denied, 84 S.Ct. 657 (1964).

  62. For details, see F.D. Trickey, ‘The Extraterritorial Effect of Foreign Exchange Control Laws’, 62 Mich. L.R. (1963–1964) p. 1232 at p. 1235 et seq.

  63. Banco do Brasil, loc. cit. n. 61, at 875; Sabbatino, loc. cit. n. 27, at 951 in n. 9 (White J., dissenting); critically, Ehrenzweig, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 166; Trickey, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 1238; cf., also Banco do Brasil, loc. cit. n. 61, at 876 (Desmond J., dissenting).

  64. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 131 with reference to Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 132.

  65. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 132.

  66. S.C. Symeonides, ‘Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2001 — Fifteenth Annual Survey’, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. (2002) p. 1 at p. 8.

  67. Williams Schulze, loc. cit. n. 31.

  68. Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1156; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 137 et seq.

  69. 31 S.Ct. 437 (1911).

  70. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(c).

  71. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 138.

  72. Pasquantino v. United States, loc. cit. n. 12.

  73. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 1, at 2 et seq.

  74. Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1775, 1776 et seq.; see also Trapilo, loc. cit. n. 20, at 552 et seq.; United States v. Miller, 26 F.Supp.2d 415 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) 430; Pierce, loc. cit. n. 27, at 164; Pasquantino II, loc. cit. n. 27; Fountain v. United States, 357 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2004) 260; B.R. Wilson, ‘Subtle Indiscretions? — International Smuggling, Federal Criminal Law, and the Revenue Rule’, 89 Corn. L.R. (2003) p. 231 at p. 262; Castel, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 245; critically, Boots, loc. cit. n. 27, at 587 et seq.; United States v. Pasquantino I, 305 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2003) 295 et seq.; R.B. Chapman, ‘Tax Compliance and the Revenue Rule in Prosecutions for Wire and Mail Fraud’, 48 ICLQ (1999) p. 437 at p. 446.

  75. Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1777.

  76. Cf., also the dissenting vote of Justice Ginsberg in Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1786 et seq.

  77. Cf., however, Pasquantino I, loc. cit. n. 74, at 297, with reference to K. Keneally, ‘The U.S. Prosecutes Foreign Tax Evasion as a Domestic Crime with Far Reaching Consequences’, 88 J. Tax’n (1998) p. 224 at p. 229: ‘Expansion of the mail and wire fraud statutes to reach violations of foreign tax law risks turning federal prosecutors and investigators into de facto criminal law enforcement agents for certain foreign tax authorities’.

  78. Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12, at 1771et seq.

  79. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 1, at 4 et seq.

  80. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 131 et seq.

  81. State of Wisconsin, loc. cit. n. 22, at 1374; Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 123 in n. 25; Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1258; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 132.

  82. See n. 26 supra.

  83. See n. 27 supra.

  84. See n. 28 supra.

  85. United States v. Belmont, 57 S.Ct. 758 (1937) 760 et seq.: ‘Governmental power over internal affairs is distributed between the national government and the several states. Governmental power over external affairs is not distributed, but is vested exclusively in the national government’; see also Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 113 et seq.; cf., as to the act of state doctrine, Sabbatino, loc. cit. n. 27, at 939.

  86. European Community, loc. cit. n. 7, at 235 in n. 1. Cf., however, Gilbertson, loc. cit. n. 27, at 412.

  87. European Community, loc. cit. n. 7, at 235 in n. 1. Cf., the obiter dictum in Gilbertson, loc. cit. n. 28, at 1163; critically, Smith, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 250 et seq., 256; von Hein, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 251.

  88. Cf., n. 27 supra.

  89. Cf., State of Wisconsin, loc. cit. n. 22, at 1374; Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 123 in n. 25; Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1258; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 132.

  90. The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 137.

  91. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 126 et seq.; Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1259; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 132, 135 et seq.; cf., also The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 485; Farnam, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 872; Mazzola, loc. cit. n. 60, at p. 107.

  92. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 126 et seq.

  93. 2001, PL 107–56 (HR 3162), 115 Stat. 272.

  94. Honduras, loc. cit. n. 9, at 1260; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 127, 134 et seq.; critically, Black, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 15.

  95. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 108, 113, 115 et seq., 119 et seq.; The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 131, 137; cf., also The European Community, loc. cit. n. 6, at 485.

  96. Canada, loc. cit. n. 8, at 126 et seq.; ibid., at 136 (Calabresi J., dissenting); Briggs, loc. cit. n. 48, at p. 292; Farnam, loc. cit. n. 33, at p. 866.

  97. Cf., e. g., R.A. Leflar, ‘Extrastate Enforcement of Penal and Governmental’, 46 Harv. L.R. (1932–1933) p. 193 at p. 216; ‘Note’, 84 U. Pa. L.R. (1935–1936) p. 526 at p. 528; G.H. Palmer, ‘Extrastate Enforcement of Tax Claims’, 18 U. Cin. L.R. (1949) p. 498 at p. 499; ‘Note’, 50 Col. L.R. (1950) p. 490 at p. 492; ‘Note’, 77 Harv. L.R. (1963’1964) p. 1327 at p. 1330; Castel, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 278; A.R. Johnson, ‘Systems for Tax Enforcement Treaties: The Choice Between Administrative Assessments and Court Judgements’, 10 Harv. Int’l L.J. (1969) p. 263 et seq.; H. Cohen, ‘Nonenforcement of Foreign Tax Laws and the Act of State Doctrine: A Conflict in Judicial Foreign Policy’, 11 Harv. Int’l L.J. (1970) p. 1 at p. 3 et seq.; Greenberg, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 630; Lowenfeld, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 421; Smith, loc. cit. n. 23, at p. 242; J. Atik, ‘The Problem of Reciprocity in Transnational Enforcement of Tax Judgments’, 8 Yale J. World Pub. Ord. (1981–1982) p. 156 at p. 160; Carter, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 114; American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third (1986), op. cit. n. 19, at p. 613; P.S.J. Smart, ‘International Insolvency and The Enforcement of Foreign Revenue Laws’, 35 ICLQ (1986) p. 704 at p. 709; B.A. Silver, ‘Modernizing the Revenue Rule: The Enforcement of Foreign Tax Judgments’, 22 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. (1992) p. 609 at p. 623; K. Siehr, ‘Europäisches Recht des Kulturgüterschutzes und die Schweiz’, AJP (1999) p. 962 at p. 965; Strebbel, loc. cit. n. 40, at p. 57 et seq.; Kovatch, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 284; Briggs, loc. cit. n. 48, at p. 280; ‘Note’, 115 Harv. L.R. (2002) p. 2333 at p. 2337; Collier, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 369; L.L. McDougal, et al., American Conflicts Law, 5th edn. (Ardsley, NY, Transnational Publishers 2001) p. 164; Dodge, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 220; Black, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 30; R. Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozeβrecht, 5th edn. (Cologne, O. Schmidt 2005) para. 1981; Basedow, loc. cit. n. 44, at p. 63 et seq.; see additionally the judicial criticism reported in nn. 18 and 20.

  98. See only Lotus case, 1927, PCIJ Series A, No. 9, p. 18.

  99. See only J. Basedow, ‘The Effects of Globalization on Private International Law’, in J. Basedow and T. Kono, eds., Legal Aspects of Globalization — Conflict of Laws, Internet, Capital Markets and Insolvency in a Global Economy (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2000) p. 1 at p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Castel, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 278.

  101. See section 2.2 supra.

  102. For more a more detailed reasoning, see Dutta, op. cit. n. 25, at pp. 143–358.

  103. Cf., Mann, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 29 et seq.; ibid., ‘Öffentlich-rechtliche Ansprüche im internationalen Rechtsverkehr’, 21 RabelsZ (1956) p. 1 at p. 7 et seq.; ibid., Beiträge zum Internationalen Privatrecht (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 1976) p. 201 at p. 206 et seq.; ibid., ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law’, 111 Recueil des Cours (1964) p. 1 at p. 141 et seq.; ibid., ‘Conflict of Laws and Public law’, 132 Recueil des Cours (1971) p. 107 at p. 168; ibid., ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty Years’, 186 Recueil des Cours (1984) p. 9 at p. 42; ibid., loc. cit. n. 48, at p. 608; ibid., loc. cit. n. 53, at p. 366; ibid., ‘L’exécution international des droits publics’, Rev. crit. (1988) p. 1 at p. 5 et seq.; ibid., ‘The International Enforcement of Public Rights’, in ibid., Further Studies in International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1990) p. 359 et seq.; ibid., The Legal Aspect of Money, 5th edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1992) p. 425; see also C. de Visscher, ‘Les gouvernements étrangers en justice — Reconnaissance internationale et immunités’, 3 Rev. dr. int. lég. comp. (1922) p. 300 at p. 319 et seq.; A. Nussbaum, Deutsches Internationales Privatrecht (Tübingen, Mohr 1932) p. 388 in n. 4; I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht (Berlin/Tübingen, Mohr 1952) p. 154 et seq.; ibid., ‘Voraussetzung für die Anwendbarkeit ausläschen öffentlichen Rechts’, 25 Rev. esp. der. int. (1972) p. 349 at p. 354; ibid., ‘Observations’, 56 Annuaire IDI (1975) p. 211 at p. 215; H. Matthies, Die deutsche internationale Zuständigkeit (Frankfurt am Main, Klostermann 1955) p. 47 et seq.; E. Spiro, ‘Enforcement of the Revenue Laws of Another State’, ICLQ (1965) p. 987 at pp. 989, 991; G. van Hecke, ‘Principes et méthodes de solution de conflits de lois’, 126 Recueil des Cours (1969) p. 399 at pp. 485, 489; G. Dahm, et al., Völkerrecht, Vol. I/1, 2nd edn. (Berlin, de Gruyter 1989) p. 328; Dehaussy, loc. cit. n. 41, at p. 115; R. Jennings and A. Watts, Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. I/1, 9th edn. (London, Longman 1992) p. 490; B. Ancel and Y. Lequette, Grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé, 3rd edn. (Paris, Dalloz 1998) p. 588; North and Fawcett, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 107; Collins, op. cit. n. 16, at para. 5–019.

  104. Robertson, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 237; Cohen, loc. cit. n. 97, at p. 20; R. Frank, ‘Öffentlich-rechtliche Ansprüche fremder Staaten vor inländischen Gerichten’, 34 RabelsZ (1970) p. 56 at p. 64; C. Tomuschat, ‘Diskussionsbeitrag’, 11 Berichte DGVR (1973) p. 104 at p. 106; S. Roloff, Die Geltendmachung ausländischer öffentlichrechtlicher Ansprüche im Inland (Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang 1994) p. 136 et seq.; C. Feldmüller Die Rechtsstellung fremder Staaten und sonstiger juristischer Personen des ausländischen öffentlichen Rechts im deutschen Verwaltungsprozeβrecht (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 1999) p. 64 et seq.

  105. See section 2.3 supra.

  106. Cf., n. 27 supra.

  107. Moore, loc. cit. n. 22, at 604 et seq.

  108. Buchanan, loc. cit. n. 17, at 105 et seq.

  109. G.A. Bermann, ‘Public law in the Conflict of Laws’, 34 Am. J. Comp. L. Supp. (1986) p. 157 at p. 181.

  110. Dodge, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 214.

  111. Lowenfeld, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 324.

  112. Cf., only Baker v. Carr, 82 S.Ct. 691 (1962) 710: ‘Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found … the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question’.

  113. Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (Nos. 2 and 3) [1982] AC 888 (HL) 938.

  114. See only Moore, loc. cit. n. 22, at 604.

  115. See n. 28 supra.

  116. See, e. g., F.A. Daum, ‘Interstate Comity and Governmental Claims’, 33 Ill. L.R. (1938–1939) p. 249 at p. 258; P.H. Neuhaus, ‘Internationales Zivilprozeßrecht und internationales Privatrecht’, 20 RabelsZ (1955) p. 201 at p. 212; G. Beitzke, ‘Nochmals zur Konfiskation von Mitgliedschaftsrechten’, JZ (1956) p. 673 at p. 674; H. Bauer, Compétence judiciaire internationale des tribunaux civils français et allemands (Paris, Dalloz 1965) p. 12; K. Vogel, Der räumliche Anwendungsbereich der Verwaltungsrechtsnorm (Franfurt am Main/Berlin, Metzner 1965) p. 202; A. Walchshöfer, ‘Die deutsche internationale Zuständigkeit in der streitigen Gerichtsbarkeit’, 80 ZZP (1967) p. 165 at p. 174; G. van Hecke, ‘Droit public et conflits des lois’, Trav. comité fr. dip. (1983–1984) p. 225 at p. 234; Frank, loc. cit. n. 104, at p. 65; P. Lalive, ‘Sur l’application du droit public étranger’, 27 Schw. Jb. Int. R. (1971) p. 103 at p. 134; J. Schulze, Das öffentliche Recht im internationalen Privatrecht (Frankfurt am Main, Metzner 1972) p. 152 et seq.; H.-J. Papier and B.-D. Olschewski, ‘Vollziehung ausländischer Verwaltungsakte’, DVBl (1976) p. 475 at p. 476; P. Mayer, ‘Droit international privé et droit international public sous l’angle de la notion de compétence (suite)’, Rev. crit. (1979) p. 349 at p. 370; K. Schurig, Kollisionsnorm und Sachrecht (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 1981) p. 163; H.G. Meier, ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads — An Intersection between Public and Private International Law’, 76 Am. J. Int’l L. (1982) p. 280 at p. 290; D. Holleaux, et al., Droit international privé (Paris, Masson 1987) para. 285; A.K. Schnyder, Wirtschaftskollisionsrecht (Zürich, Schulthess 1990) para. 296; Audit, loc. cit. n. 40, at p. 383; ibid., Droit international privé, 3rd edn. (Paris, Economica 2000) p. 254; Dehaussy, loc. cit. n. 41, at p. 109; Batiffol and Lagarde, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 418; Dormann Bessenich, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 66 et seq.; J. Verhoeven, ‘Sur la récupération à l’étranger des sommes détournées par l’anciens d’Etat’, in C. Dominicé, et al., eds., Études de droit international en l’honneur de Pierre Lalive (Bâle/Frankfurt am Main, Helbing und Lichtenhahn 1993) p. 359 at p. 370 et seq.; W. Meng, Extraterritoriale Jurisdiktion im öffentlichen Wirtschaftsrecht (Berlin, Springer 1994) p. 286; Ancel and Lequette, op. cit. n. 103, at pp. 586, 588; I. Seidl-Hohenveldern and T. Stein, Völkerrecht, 9th edn. (Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich, C. Heymann 1997) para. 1507; P. Mayer and V. Heuzé, Droit international privé, 8th edn. (Paris, Montchrestien 2004) para. 315; R. Geiger, Grundgesetz und Völkerrecht, 3rd edn. (Munich, C.H. Beck 2002) p. 332; H. Schack, Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 3rd edn. (Munich, C.H. Beck 2002) para. 511; Black, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 27; Jenn, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 40 et seq.; Kegel and Schurig, op. cit. n. 39, at p. 1094; Geimer, op. cit. n. 97, at para. 1975; van der Plas, op. cit. n. 41, at p. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Many double taxation treaties contain enforcement clauses as to certain tax claims, see, e. g., Art. 23 of the French-German double taxation treaty, BGBl 1961 II 397.

  118. Cf., e. g., Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, OJ 1976 L 73/18, extended by Council Directives 79/1071/EEC, OJ 1979 L 331/10, 92/108/EEC, OJ 1992 L 390/124 and 2001/44/EC, OJ 2001 L 175/17. See also Art. 5 of Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, OJ 1993 L 74/74 and Art. 39 of Council regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, OJ 2000 L 160/1.

  119. Pasquantino, loc. cit. n. 12.

  120. Cf., Rb Arnhem 23 May 1996, loc. cit. n. 24, at 572; Hof Arnhem 6 July 1999, loc. cit. n. 24, at 116.

  121. Baker, loc. cit. n. 40, at pp. 207, 209.

  122. Cf., R. Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York, Basic Books 1984) p. 169 et seq. passim.

    Google Scholar 

  123. This psychology becomes visible, e. g., in the US decision in Gilbertson, loc. cit. n. 27 and n. 28, which reacted to the earlier Canadian denial of enforcing US tax claims in Harden, loc. cit. n. 26.

  124. Carter, loc. cit. n. 39, at p. 119.

  125. J.L. Freeze, ‘Extraterritorial Enforcement of Revenue Laws’, 23 Wash. U.L.Q. (1937–1938) p. 321.

    Google Scholar 

  126. A first sketch of those possible rules can be found in Dutta, op. cit. n. 25, at pp. 359–432.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Anatol Dutta Dr. iur., M.Jur. (Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Anatol Dutta Dr. iur., M.Jur.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dutta, A. Civil Claims of Foreign Sovereigns for Lost Taxes: The Big Tobacco Cases and the Revenue Rule. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 7, 697–724 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752906006975

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752906006975

Keywords

Search

Navigation