C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2065: Deputies Documents
Report to the Deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers by the Committee of Economic Experts on Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland 34
C.F.M.(D) (46) 139
Peace Treaty With Roumania
Restitution
| Part I. | Agreed provisions. |
| Part II. | Subjects for which the Committee agreed that provisions were necessary in the treaty, but on which agreement was not reached. |
| Part III. | Proposed provisions on which the Committee did not reach agreement regarding the necessity of inclusion in the treaty. |
Note.—Although throughout this Report paragraphs are numbered consecutively in each Part, this is done for convenience of reference and in no way indicates the final order of articles in the Treaty.
Part I. Agreed Provisions
[Here follows text of Part I, which is the same, mutatis mutandis, as Part I of C.F.M.(D) (46) 138, June 5, 1946, printed supra, except for the omission of paragraph 5.]
[Page 475]Part II: Subjects for Which the Committee Agreed That Provisions Were Necessary in the Treaty, but on Which Agreement Was Not Reached
1. Subject to the reservations expressed below the following text was agreed.
“The obligation to make restitution applies to all identifiable property at present in Roumania which was removed by force by any of the Axis Powers from the territory of any of the United Nations.”
a. The French, U.K., and U.S. Representatives would not be prepared to agree to this text unless it is clear that removals resulting from intimidation or coercion, as well as those resulting from physical violence or taking, should be within the scope of restitution. Accordingly, these representatives consider that the words “or duress” should be inserted after the word “force” in the above paragraph.
The U.S. Representative expressed his willingness, as an alternative, to add an annex to the article on restitution defining “force” in the manner agreed by the Co-ordinating Committee of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.
b. The French Representative can only accept subject to the reservation that a provision on burden of proof as set out in Part III be included in the article.
c. The French, U.K., and U.S. Representatives consider that the following words should be added at the end of the above paragraph: “irrespective of any subsequent transactions by which the present holder of any such property has secured possession”.
The U.S. Representative does not consider that claims for restitution should be barred by contentions that persons within the Axis country in which the property is presently located acquired property without knowledge of the original looting and refers to the language of the first sentence of paragraph 4 of C.F.M.(D) (B) (46)30.35
2. No agreement having been reached on replacement, the following views were expressed:
a. The Soviet Representative proposed:
“Restitution of property may be replaced by a payment of a compensation or a delivery of other property on the basis provided by any agreements already concluded or any agreements which may be concluded in the future between the government of the United Nation concerned and the Roumanian Government.”
b. The U.K. Representative considered that the question was covered by the proposal in C.F.M. (D) (46) 106, article 24, which reads as follows:
“Roumania, insofar as she has not yet done so, undertakes within the time-limits indicated by the Government of the U.S.S.R. to return [Page 476] to the Soviet Union in complete good order all valuables and materials removed from its territory during the war, and belonging to State, public and co-operative organizations, enterprises, institutions or individual citizens, such as: factory and works equipment, locomotives, railway trucks, tractors, motor vehicles, historic monuments, museum valuables and any other property. Where the identical property which has been removed cannot be returned in complete good order, the Roumanian Government undertakes to make replacement deliveries in accordance with the terms of the relevant Soviet-Roumanian Agreement as set out in the Annex to this Article”.
c. The U.S. representative does not consider that the replacement of looted property is in general a problem of such scope as to justify the administrative complexities which the inclusion of a general provision on the subject would create. It is recognized, however, that a special situation exists with respect to the Soviet Union, which is covered by Article 28 of the U.S. draft Treaty with Roumania (C.F.M.(D) (46)117) reading as follows:
“Roumania, insofar as it has not yet done so, undertakes to return to the Soviet Union in complete good order all valuables and materials received from Soviet territory during the war and belonging to State, public and cooperative organizations, enterprises, institutions or individual citizens, such as: factory and works equipment, locomotives, rolling stock, tractors, motor vehicles, historic monuments, museum valuables and any other property.
“When the identical property which has been removed cannot be returned in complete good order, the Roumanian Government undertakes in accordance with arrangements agreed to by the Soviet and Roumanian Governments on September —, 1945, to make replacement deliveries of similar goods by September —, 1948. In accordance with these arrangements, the total obligation of Roumania under this Article shall be limited to the delivery of goods to a value of 300 milliard lei, at prices ruling in Roumania on the 1st April, 1945, less the amounts delivered between September 1945 and the effective date of this Treaty pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 of the Armistice Agreement”.
[Here follows Section 3, which sets forth the views of each representative regarding the method of settling disputes arising from the restitution of loot.]
Part III. Proposed Provisions on Which the Committee Did Not Reach Agreement Regarding the Necessity of Inclusion in the Treaty
1. The French representative proposes the inclusion of the following paragraph in respect of the proposal under Part II, paragraph 1:
“The burden of proof that removal of such property was not effected by an act of force or duress shall lie on the Roumanian Government”.
The Soviet representative considers that in the conciliation procedure there is no necessity for predetermining on what party the burden of proof shall be laid.
The U.S. representative does not object to a provision on the burden of proof and has stated he would accept a provision reading as follows:
“The burden of identifying the property and of proving the original ownership shall rest on the claimant Government, and the burden of proving that the property was not removed by force or duress shall rest on the Roumanian Government.”
The U.K. representative considers that either the French or U.S. proposal would have the same result and he supports the principle embodied in them.
2. The French representative proposed the inclusion of a paragraph providing for a compensation in lei for expenses incurred outside of Roumania by owners of property located in Roumania for the return of their property.
- This document was subsequently included as Appendix I to C.F.M.(D) (46) 182, Draft Peace Treaty with Roumania, not printed. It was discussed by the Council of Foreign Ministers at its 27th Meeting, June 26, and 28th Meeting, June 27; see the United States Delegation Records of those meetings, pp. 630 and 648.↩
- Not printed.↩