[Sweden]: Message to the International Court of Justice

[Connor]

Kingdom of Sweden Reinfeldt Administration

August 2006​

Dear Presiding Judge Dr. Eric Runesson,

Pursuant to the Statute of the Court, Article 40 and associated subsections, please accept this correspondence as our filing of an application to be heard within the Commercial Chamber. This application will contain a summary of the material facts in the case.

The plaintiff in this matter is the Department for Defence, Kingdom of Sweden (in part represented by third party Strömberg International Legal Consultants of Strömberg Group). The defendant in this matter is Nationales Consortium Fur Marineexport - it is anticipated that their plea will be not guilty. Our case surrounds the breach of contract between the Kingdom of Sweden and the incumbent government in Germany, for whom it is presumed the defendant acts on behalf of, and the subsequent risks to national security and substantial financial loss attributed.

In August 1997 the plaintiff and the then Minister of Defence, Federal Republic of Germany entered into a Domestic Production Rights Agreement which took effect on the date of ratification within the same month and year for and behalf of their respective governments. The agreement was for a naval frigate namely the Sachsen-class Frigate (hereon-in 'the frigate'). This agreement fundamentally focussed on, as the name suggests, the domestic production of seven iterations of the frigate for use within the Swedish Royal Navy - however, within the content of the agreement a risk assessment was established (Chapter II - Terms of Sale, Article 2). The risk assessment established a substantial risk posed to the national security of the plaintiff owing to the highly capable nature of the frigate - it also established that at the time of the report there was no existing sales of the frigate within the international market. As such the terms the agreement established that the frigate be removed from the then German Defence Export's catalogue, specifications should be accredited the security classification 'TOP SECRET' (SDCSA 1995) or equivalent and not to refer to or publicly acknowledge the agreement.

It is the view of the plaintiff that this contract has been breached.

Our investigation has established that in February 2004 the Nationales Consortium Fur Marineexport, the defendant, published their catalogue within which a number of advanced naval equipment was advertised for sale. The catalogue included prices and a purchase form - leading us to the conclusion that this was a marketplace catalogue for international sale. The aforementioned frigate is listed as the first available product which is at the time of writing named as 'F124 Sachsen-class Frigate' valued at $1,072,603,350.00. Purchase forms within the catalogue are encrypted and the prosecution have been unable to access this documentation. However, responses by the defendant show that on two separate occasions, in Feburary 2005 and April 2005, the frigate is invoiced with a total value of $2,145,206,700 and $6,435,620,100 respectively. This is a total of $8,580,826,800 and the view of the prosecution that this equates to the sale of eight iterations of the frigate.

Broader scope shows ten of the frigate in active service in the Portuguese Navy by official government publication - this is undocumented and the origin of this sale is unknown.

Since discovery a Cease and Desist been sent by Strömberg International Legal Consultants, representing the plaintiff, outlining the breach of contract - this was followed by a letter informing urgent action required, which again went unanswered. Both of these documents were addressed to the defendant and presumed as received. This leads us to believe this is now a wilful breach of contract as no action has been taken and no contact made with the plaintiff or their associates.

In light of the above, it is our firm position that the defendant has not only violated the express terms of the agreement, but has done so wilfully, repeatedly, and with disregard for both contractual obligations and international security implications. Accordingly, we respectfully request that this matter proceed to formal judicial consideration without delay, and we remain available to provide any further documentation or testimony as required.

Regards,
Mari Heidenborg
Chancellor of Justice
Department for Justice

---

RESTRICTED
Crown Copyright © Kingdom of Sweden
All information is encrypted and subject to the Swedish Document Classification and Security Act 1995​

Global Assembly

 

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ​

September, 2006
OFFICIAL | ENCRYPTED​

Mari Heidenborg
Chancellor of Justice
Department for Justice
Stockholm, Sweden

Chancellor Heidenborg,

I write to confirm receipt of the application by the Kingdom of Sweden. This filing, made pursuant to Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, has been reviewed by the Registry and is found to be compliant with the formal procedural requirements for admissibility before the Commercial Chamber.

The matter has been entered into the Court's docket, titled Sweden v. Nationales Consortium Für Marineexport. In accordance with Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, the following steps are to be executed:

1. The Court shall notify all Parties concerned of the submission of this application.
2. The Applicant, namely the Kingdom of Sweden, shall serve a copy of the filed application upon the Respondent, namely Nationales Consortium Für Marineexport, within a reasonable timeframe. We request that the copy of the filed application is served within fourteen days.
3. The Court reserves the authority to monitor and verify the proper service of the application to the Respondent. Confirmation of service it to be submitted to the Registry.​

Please note that failure to effect timely and proper service of the application, as stipulated, may result in procedural measures as the Court deems appropriate, consistent with the principles of fairness and justice.

Upon confirmation of service or expiration of the service period, the Respondent shall be invited to submit an initial written response within 30 calendar days. Following this, a scheduling order will be issued to govern the subsequent phases of the proceedings.

Should either party seek provisional measures or expedited handling, such motions must be duly filed and substantiated.

The Registry remains available for any logistical coordination or procedural clarifications as required.

Yours faithfully,
His Excellency the Chief Justice of the International Court of Justice

On his behalf,

Silvester Pearce
Registrar of the Court
​

---

Digital Diplomatic Communication​

Connor