 |
of French dyestuffs production in a new company with German
participation, but they still protested against, and held out against, Farben's
demand for the majority interest. The evidence establishes that, in this
regard, they even received support from French governmental authorities. But
the French industry's plight was too desperate.
Finally, on 10 March
1941, the Vichy government gave its approval to the plan for the creation of
the Franco-German dyestuffs company, Francolor, in which Farben was to be
permitted to acquire a controlling 51 percent stock interest. This decision of
the Vichy government was announced by the defendant von Schnitzler to the
French representatives at a conference on that date. After confirmation of the
fact that the officials in charge of economic questions for the French
Government supported the position taken by Farben, the French industry was
forced to give in. Final agreement was reached at a subsequent conference on 12
March 1941, attended by representatives from the French and German industries
involved and by representatives of Military Government in Occupied France.
The Francolor Convention was formally executed on 18 November 1941. It
was signed by the defendants von Schnitzler and ter Meer on behalf of Farben.
By this convention Farben permanently acquired the controlling interest in the
French dyestuffs industry, and paid therefor in shares of IG's stock, which
could not be realized upon by the French as they were prohibited by terms of
the convention from transferring the shares except among themselves. A decree
entered by a French court on 3 November 1945 declared the legal nullity of the
transfer of the shares of stock in Francolor to Farben. The transaction,
although apparently legal in form, was annulled by virtue of the Inter-Allied
Declaration of 5 January 1943 and French decrees based thereon.
The
defendants have contended that the Francolor Agreement was the product of free
negotiations and that it proved beneficial in practice to the French interests.
We have already indicated that overwhelming proof establishes the pressure and
coercion employed to obtain the consent of the French to the Francolor
Agreement. As consent was not freely given, it is of no legal significance that
the agreement may have contained obligations on the part of Farben, the
performance of which may have assisted in the rehabilitation of the French
industries. Nor is the adequacy of consideration furnished for the French
properties in the new corporation a valid defense. The essence of the offense
is the use of the power resulting from the military occupation of France as the
means of acquiring private property in utter disregard of the rights and wishes
of the owner. We find the element of compulsion and coercion present in an
aggravated degree in the Francolor transaction, and the violation of the Hague
Regulations is clearly established. |
1150 |
. 
