Article 6 of the Geneva Convention provides that Poland may expropriate in Upper Silesia major industrial undertakings, but the property, rights and interest of German nationals cannot be liquidated.
“Poland may expropriate in Polish Upper Silesia, in conformity with the provisions of Articles 7 to 23, undertakings belonging to the category of major industries including mineral deposits and rural estates. Except as provided in these clauses, the property, rights and interest of German nationals or of companies controlled by German nationals may not be liquidated in Polish Upper Silesia”
Germany claimed indemnity for the damage caused by the illegal seizure.
(16) [analyzing article 6 of Geneva Conventions the Court said] Whatever may be the scope, in this article, of the conception of “liquidation” and “expropriation”, it is clear that it is intended to define Poland’s powers in regard to this point and in the territory in question
(20) It is a much disputed question in the teaching of legal authorities and in the jurisprudence of the principal countries whether the doctrine of litispendance … can be invoked in international relations, in the sense that the judges of one State should, in the absence of a treaty, refuse to entertain any suit already pending before the courts of another State, exactly as they would be bound to do if an action on the same subject had at some previous time been brought in due form before another court of their own country... it is clear that the essential elements which constitute litispendance are not present. There is no question of two identical actions… the parties are not the same, and, finally, the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals and the Permanent Court of International Justice are not courts of the same character.