B-145465, MAR. 22, 1966

B-145465, MAR. 22, 1966

TO MR. HERMAN BECKER:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 2, 1966, RELATIVE TO OUR DECISIONS DENYING YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON AN AMOUNT ALLOWED AND PAID TO YOU BY THE UNITED STATES AS THE BALANCE DUE FOR RENTAL OF THE PREMISES AT 19 RHABANUSSTRASSE, FULDA, GERMANY, DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1949, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1950.

OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT A CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF DM 35,643.30 (WEST GERMAN CURRENCY), COVERING ADDITIONAL RENT FOR THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE PROPERTY FROM JANUARY 1, 1949, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1950, WAS ALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE ON JUNE 26, 1961, AND IT APPEARS, AS YOU STATE, THAT THE AMOUNT ALLOWED WAS PAID TO YOU ON JULY 11, 1961. YOUR SUBSEQUENT CLAIM FOR INTEREST, IN THE AMOUNT OF DM 21,836.29, WAS DISALLOWED BY A SETTLEMENT ISSUED ON AUGUST 19, 1965. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION TO YOU OF OCTOBER 5, 1965, AND THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST WAS AGAIN REJECTED IN OUR DECISION TO YOU OF JANUARY 18, 1966.

YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE DECISIONS THAT IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE ALLOWED EXCEPT WHERE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS STIPULATED BY CONTRACT OR IS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WERE ALSO ADVISED, IN EFFECT, THAT WE CONSIDERED THE DOCTRINE OF COMITY AS A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR GRANTING YOU RELIEF, BUT THAT WE HAD DETERMINED THAT WE WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO GRANT ANY SUCH RELIEF EVEN IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT UNDER GERMAN LAW YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST IS MAINTAINABLE. THAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE AS SET FORTH IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 18, 1966, THAT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES WILL NEVER GIVE EFFECT TO A FOREIGN LAW WHERE ITS ENFORCEMENT "WOULD CONTRAVENE THE POSITIVE POLICY OF THE LAW OF THE FORUM, WHETHER OR NOT THAT POLICY IS REFLECTED IN STATUTORY ENACTMENT.'

YOU REFER TO THE FACT THAT OUR DECISIONS BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST AS ONE COVERING "INTEREST ON UNPAID RENT FOR THE PREMISES AT 19 RHABANUSSTRASSE, FULDA, GERMANY, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1949, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1950.' YOU CONTEND THAT THE LANGUAGE USED IS ERRONEOUS SINCE YOU HAD ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF THE RENTAL BALANCE DURING A PERIOD OF OVER 11 AND ONE-HALF YEARS AND THE DEBT WAS NOT PAID UNTIL JULY 11, 1961. YOU SUGGEST THAT OUR BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST CONSTITUTES EITHER AN INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION OR AN INDICATION THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE NOT CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST MUST BE DENIED.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST REASONABLY MAY BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT YOU WERE CLAIMING INTEREST ON AN ACCOUNT WHICH INVOLVED THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF YOUR PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1949, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1950. IN ANY EVENT, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE DECISIONS DO NOT SPECIFY THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE DETERMINED AS DUE FOR RENTAL OF THE PREMISES, NO MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WAS INTENDED AND THE DECISION IN EACH INSTANCE WAS RENDERED ONLY AFTER THERE HAD BEEN A CAREFUL EXAMINATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLETE RECORD CONCERNING BOTH THE RENTAL CLAIM AND YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND THE SUBMISSION OF PHOTOGRAPHS APPARENTLY SHOWING THE CONDITION OF YOUR PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION OF ITS USE AS AN AMERIKA HOUS (INFORMATION CENTER BRANCH), IT IS OUR OPINION THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS WHICH WOULD PERMIT A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THAT HERETOFORE REACHED IN REGARD TO YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR DECISIONS DATED OCTOBER 5, 1965, AND JANUARY 18, 1966, YOU ARE AGAIN ADVISED THAT WE FIND NO BASIS OR AUTHORITY FOR ALLOWING THE INTEREST CLAIMED.