JURISDICTION OF PRIZE COURTS. y
legal acts. The decisions of the German Prize Courts
depriving claimants of all legal remedies for the
fringe en of their rights appear to be entirely
justifiable in law.
§ 40. In Russia, in accordance with the provisions of Russian
of the naval code of March 27, 1895, as amended byjLiize Coutts,
the Imperial ukase of July 14, 1914, captures may
be effected on any waters other than the territorial
Waters of a neutral State. The Sebastopol Prize Court
“as thus able to declare valid the seizure of the
Austrian vessel, The Fratelli 3. Mendl, although she
had been captured on the inland waters of the river
Dany} +
The jurisdiction of the Russian Prize Courts is
°xXcluded in all cases of seizures of enemy cargo on
boar Russian vessels or vessels belonging to an Allied
Powey 5
Cargo includes moneys in gold and paper.®
The fact that the property seized has been destroyed
by the naval authorities and is no longer in existence
does pot deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to pro-
ounce oy the validity or otherwise of the capture.”
S41. In view of the judgment of the Russian of Rumanian
Prize Courts that captures in the Danube were valid, Frize Courts,
it is interesting to note that Rumania advanced an
1denticy] claim in respect of seizures carried out in
the Same river. Article 25 of the Rumanian naval
po ructions contains a similar provision as that in the
he Lal code to the effect that captures may lawfully
my made on any waters except neutral territorial waters.
hat, pment of the Rumanian Prize Courts confis-
Derr) a number of Austrian vessels seized on the
ube by the Rumanian naval forces was disputed,
: Segment of January 28, 1916, Rep. ry Libr.
Novem, 9 jr atsnuon oe Sgr i Convontion of
© The So. Ni li, j dgment of the Sk 1 Bore Court
of Avgurs RI cola, judg ent o I
he To 5, Rep, Fry Libr,
#1 Bari, judgment of the same of August 12, 1015, ibid.
4: