426 Compensation for nationalisation of foreign investments _expropriations which are considered lawful in modem international law. This will appear from the examination of the facts of the case. ‘A German company established a nitrate factory at Chorzow in Upper Silesia in purs ance of an agreement it made with the German government in 1915, In 1919, the land and the factory were sold by the German govemment to another German company. The first company still managed the factory. Upper Silesia passed into Polish hands after the Treaty of ‘Versailles. In 1922, a Polish cout declared te registration ofthe second company tobe void and thatthe land on which the factory stood was to be transferred tothe Polish treasury. A Polish ministerial decree vested management ofthe factory in a Polish offical ‘Tae issue which was presented tothe Permancnt Court of Intemstional Justice in 1926 was whether the taking over of the factory contravened the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1922 between Germany and Poland. Aricle 6 of the Convention stated that Poland may expropriate major industries in Polish Upper Silesia but that it should not liquidate the rights of individual German nationals or companies in this region, The Court held that the taking ofthe factory was a violation of this treaty. The Court said that the Convention itself made certain expropriations lawful and others unlawful and thatthe expropriation of the factory fll within the category of unlawful expropriations under the treaty. It is clear thatthe case concemed expropriations which were considered unlawful because they constituted violations ofa treaty ‘After the judgment of the Court in 1926, negotiations took place between Germany and Poland for the restitution of the factory o,ifthis was not possible, for indemnity. It is clear that at this stage of the negotiations, the parties tothe dispute themselves contemplated the possibilty of restitution. When the negotiations proved unsuccessful, Germany claimed damages forthe expropriation in a fresh claim before the Court. The German claim itemised the manner in which damages were ealewated and did not include a claim fo lost profits The only claim relating tothe future was the claim for an order preventing exports from the factory to certain countries. This aspect ofthe claim was refused by the Court. The Polish objection to the jurisdiction ofthe Court was overruled in 1927, and the Court pronounced on the merits of the ease in 1928 ‘The Court reiterated the fact that it was not dealing with a lawful expropriation when it observed: The action of Poland which the Court has judged tobe contrary to the Geneva Convention is not an expropriation ~ to render which lawful only the payment of fair compensation would have been ‘wanting itis 8 seizure of property rights and interests which could not be expropriated even against compensation ... It follows thatthe compensation due tothe German goverzment isnot necessarily limited tothe value of the undertaking at the moment of dispossession, ps interest tothe day of | payment. This limitation would only be admissible if the Polish government had the right to expropriate, and if its wrongtil act consisted merely in not having paid to the two companies the just price of what was expropriated; in the present case such a limitation might result in placing Germany and interests protected by the Geneva Convention, on bebalf of which interests the German goverment is acting, in situation more unfavourable than that in which Germany and these interests ‘would have been ifPoland bad respected the said Convention