Hi @ all,

I found the attached doc on thailaws.com and I am sure it will be very similar with other countries. When I read it to it says clearly that if a Thai can have freehold in my country (which he could) I can have freehold in Thailand. Did anybody ever look at this? What is you thoughts about it?

sorry I attached wrong, this is the most up to date one but similar when it comes to the point of property.

Maybe tha ADMIN can delete the wrong one

Hi,

I see a clause concerning movable and immovable property, but nothing specific on freehold land rights. Did I miss something ? I think that we'll find that the spirit in which it was written, envisages investments in immovable objects and maybe building structures, but not land itself. Nevertheless it will be interesting to see if any qualified legal minds can give us more insight.

Cheers

This does not expand the classes of foreigners or the necessary requirements for foreign ownership of Thai land that are already well known.

Edited February 15, 201016 yr by thaiwanderer

OKF, thanks. Most interesting. Could you possibly find or provide links to similar treaties btw thai and other countries?

I am a bit concerned about this 'according to the existing laws and regulations' phrase.

It can and does nullify whatever is said before or after

States enter into treaties all the time, and whilst it might be binding in international law, just by entering into a treaty a country does not automatically change its domestic laws.

Here the Thai government would have to change the laws of Thailand IF this treaty intended to establish a right for German citizens to own freehold real estate in Thailand (assuming Thais can own the same in Germany).

However I would also expect very clear and precise language to be used if this was the intention of the treaty and not simply for freehold real estate to be caught by a sweeper phrase such as "moveable and immoveable property", even though one would be forgiven for thinking that phrase exactly intends to include immovable property such as land.

In Thai speak I am sure their diplomats would call that a "misunderstanding" which, when the German diplomats had it clearly explained to them, they would fully understand the real situation (ie it's a mistake).

But even if it wasn't, and the Thais really did intend to allow German naitonals to own freehold land here, and intended to change their domestic law to facilitate this treaty obligation, they haven't, and even if this means they are in breach of the treaty, they are certainly not going to be held to account for it by the Germans, I am sure.

And finally, as someone else pointed out, it is likely that this treaty, signed for whatever feelgood diplomatic reason, if it is to take effect subject to existing Thai laws, is probably not worth the paper it’s written on for someone claiming it changes Thai domestic real estate law.

Any other thoughts?

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by sharecropper

@backsoon

As I said I found it on www.thailaws.com and lots of countries are covered there

@all

Thnaks for sharing your views. Yes I felt he same, maybe not worth the paper written on and I have asked the political admin in the german embassy but the answer was no commetn and a list of lawers. I will have a go at them agein becaus eit is a political thing nothing to do with the laws in particular and see what the out come is (just for the fun of it)