Search results

Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain): On June 19, 1962, the Belgian government filed with the Registrar of the Court an application instituting new proceedings against Spain on the subject of the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. This claim, the subject of which is reparation for the damage caused to a number of Belgian subjects by organs of the Spanish state, had been the subject of earlier proceedings brought before the Court. Because of the possibility of negotiating the issue, the Belgian government had informed the Court that it did not wish to continue proceedings, and the Court on April 10, 1961, had removed the case from its list. The negotiations, however, failed, and the Belgian government had instituted new proceedings.

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): On May 30, 1961, the government of the Republic of Cameroun filed in the Registry of the Court an application instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom.1 The applicant alleged that the United Kingdom had failed to respect certain obligations of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under British Administration of December 13, 1946. The application stated specifically: 1) that the Northern Cameroons had not been administered as a separate territory within an administrative union, but as an integral part of Nigeria; 2) that the objectives set forth in article 6 of the trusteeship agreement—the development of free political institutions and an increasing share for the inhabitants in the administrative services, as well as their participation in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government of the territory—had not been attained; 3) that the agreement did not authorize the administering power to govern the territory as two separate parts evolving differently politically; 4) that, with respect to General Assembly Resolution 1473 (XIV) of December 12, 1959, (a) provisions relating to the separation of the administration of the Northern Cameroons from that of Nigeria, had not been followed, and (b) conditions laid down for the drawing up of electoral lists had been interpreted in a discriminatory manner; and 5) that the acts of the local authorities in the period preceding the plebiscite authorized by the afore-mentioned resolution and during the subsequent election involved consequences in conflict with the trusteeship agreement.

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): On October 6, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against the Kingdom of Thailand was filed in the Registry of the Court by the Kingdom of Cambodia. In its application the Kingdom of Cambodia alleged that since 1949 the Kingdom of Thailand had persisted in the occupation of a portion of Cambodian territory—the area surrounding the Temple of Preah Vihear, a sacred place of pilgrimage and worship for the Cambodian people—and that in 1954 it had sent detachments of its armed forces into the territory in question. The Kingdom of Cambodia alleged also that its tide to sovereignty over the land had been established by treaties, that it had effectively exercised territorial powers, and that the Kingdom of Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty which would displace them. The Court was thus requested to adjudge whether or not the Kingdom of Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw its troops, and whether or not territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah belonged to the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Case concerning the "Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth" and the "Société Radio-Orient" (France v. Lebanon):On February 13, 1959, an application instituting proceedings before the Courtagainst Lebanon was filed by France. The application noted that in accordance with the terms of their constitutional instruments, theCompagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and the Société Radio-Orientenjoyed certain customs and tax exemptions in Lebanon during the life of their concessions. The Lebanese government, it continued, having, on July 26, 1956, enacted a law providing for the imposition of income tax and other fiscal and municipal taxes on all companies enjoying an exemption under agreements ratified by special legislation, the French government considered that this constituted a unilateral alteration of the position of the companies concerned, which was contrary to the Agreement of January 24, 1948, between France and Lebanon.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 2J, 1955 (United States v. Bulgaria): In an order of October 8, 1958, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent for the government of Bulgaria, extended the time limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of the government of Bulgaria to September 9, 1959.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of November 7, 1954 (United States v. Soviet Union): On July 7, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against die Soviet Union was filed in the Registry of the Court by the government of the United States. In its application the government of the United States alleged that on November 7, 1954, one of its aircraft was attacked and destroyed over the Japanese island of Hokkaido by fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union. It requested the Court to find that the Soviet Union was liable for the damages caused and to award damages in the sum of $756,604. It also stated that it had submitted to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and that it was open to the government of the Soviet Union to do likewise. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the application was thereupon communicated by the Registry to the government of the Soviet Union.

Case of the Norwegian Loans Issued in France (France v. Norway): In an order of September 28, 1956, the Court fixed December 20, 1056, as the time-limit for the counter-memorial of the Kingdom of Norway, February 20, 1957, as the time-limit for the reply of the government of France and April 25, 1957, for the rejoinder of Norway. In the same order, the Court joined the objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway to the merits in the proceedings instituted by the French government in order that it might adjudicate in one and the same judgment on these objections and, if necessary, on the merits.

Right of Passage Through Indian Territory (Portugal v. India): On April 15, 1957, the government of India filed with the Court a preliminary objection to the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the application of the government of Portugal. By an order of April 16, President of the Court fixed June 15, 1957, as the time-limit within which the government of Portugal could present a written statement of its observations and submissions on the objection. Meanwhile, proceedings on the merits were suspended.

Case concerning the Guardianship of an Infant (Netherlands v. Sweden): An application instituting proceedings against Sweden was filed by the Netherlands on July 10, 1957, and alleged that Marie Elisabeth Boll, born in Sweden of a Dutch father and a mother of Swedish nationality before her marriage, possessed Dutch nationality. After the death of the mother Swedish authorities had taken and maintained measures providing for guardianship of the child, despite appeals from the Dutch guardians and from the Netherlands government, which considered that the Swedish authorities had violated the 1902 convention governing the guardianship of infants. In an order of August 19, 1957, the Court fixed November 30, 1957, as the time–limit for the memorial of the Netherlands and March 31, 1958, as the time–limit for the counter–memorial of Sweden.

Case of the Norwegian Loans Issued in France (France v. Norway): In an order of April 24, 1956, the Court fixed June 4, 1956, as the time-limit within which the French government might present a written statement of its observations and submissions in regard to certain preliminary objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court and contending that the claim submitted by the application of France was inadmissible. In an order of May 29, 1956, the Court decided, as a result of a request presented on behalf of the Kingdom of Norway, to depart from its original intention of opening the oral hearings on June 25, 1956, and postpone the opening of the oral proceedings. In the same order, the Court extended to August 31, 1956, the time-limit for the filing by France of its observations and submissions in regard to the preliminary objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway.

Right of Passage Through Indian Territory (Portugal v. India): In an order of March 13, 1956, the Court fixed June 15, 1956, as the time-limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Portugal, and December 15, 1956, as the time-limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of the Indian government.

Amhatielos Case: On May 19, 1953, the Court, by a vote of 10 to 4 decided that the United Kingdom was "under an obligation to co-operate with Greece in constituting a Commission of Arbitration, in accordance with the Protocol of 1886, as provided in the Declaration of 1926". After reviewing the submissions of the two parties, and recalling that the Court had previously held that it had no jurisdiction to decide of the merits of the Ambatielos claim, the Court stated that the question at issue was whether the United Kingdom government was under an obligation to accept arbitration of the difference between that government and Greece concerning the validity of the claim presented by Greece "in so far as this claim is based on the Treaty of 1886". The majority of the Court felt that, for the purpose of determining the obligation of the United Kingdom, the words "claims … based on the provisions of the … Treaty of 1886" could not be understood as meaning claims actually supportable under that Treaty. The Court believed that these words could only mean "claims depending for support on the provisions of the Treaty of 1886, so that the claims will eventually stand or fall according as the provisions of the Treaty are construed one way or another". In its argument, the Greek government had invoked Articles I, X, XII and XV of the Treaty of 1886 and, relying on the most-favored-nation clause in Article X therein, invoked Article 16 of a treaty of peace and commerce between the United Kingdom and Denmark signed in 1661 as well as additional treaties between the United Kingdom and third states. The Hellenic government argued that these provisions supported their claim that the Ambatielos claim for denial of justice in British courts was based on the provisions of the 1886 treaty. The Court agreed that the difference between the parties was "the kind of difference which, according to the Declaration of 1926, should be submitted to arbitration".

Anglo-Iranian Oil Case: On December 20, 1951, at the request of the Imperial Government of Iran, the Court granted a one month extension of the time-limit (to February 11, 1952) for the deposit of Iran's counter-memorial or preliminary objection.1 On February 11, the government of Iran deposited with the Registry of the Court a document entitled "Preliminary observations: refusal by the Imperial Government to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court". As a result of the Iranian objection, which was presented in accordance with the conditions laid down by the rules of the Court, the proceedings on the merits were, as of that date, suspended. By an order of the same date, the President of the Court fixed March 27, 1952, as the time-limit granted to the United Kingdom to submit to the Court its written observations on the Iranian exception.

The fourteenth session of the Council, convened on September 28, was adjourned on December 14, 1951. The Council adopted twenty amendments to Annex 8 (Airworthiness of Aircraft), arising out of the work of the Airworthiness Division at its fourth session. Action was also taken on recommendations 1 to 23 of the Search and Rescue Division, third session, the details of which were communicated to member states as a forward to the division's report. The Council noted with satisfaction the agreements reached at the special meeting on coordination of air traffic in western Europe4 held in Paris in October 1951, directed that the report of the meeting be published as an ICAO document, and urged all affected states to give high priority to the coordination of their national requirements for the use of air space in western Europe. It was hoped that the progress made would be consolidated at the European-Mediterranean Regional Air Navigation Meeting to convene in Paris on February 26, 1952. Further, the Council: approved the program recommended by the Air Navigation Commission for keeping regional plans up to date and for isolating the more critical deficiencies in air navigation facilities and services; decided to recommend to the Assembly the adoption, with minor amendments, of the draft revised constitution of the Legal Committee prepared by that committee at its seventh session;0 approved the convening of the subcommittee established to continue work on the revision of the 1929 Warsaw Convention.

Eleventh Session of the Council: In the period from September 15 to October 15, 1950, the Council, meeting in the second part of its eleventh session, devoted a major portion of its time to the study of the 79th report of the Air Navigation Commission containing the commission's recommendations on the notification by states and the dissemination by the secretariat of divergencies from ICAO standards, practices, and procedures. No decision was reached on the question during the Council's discussions. During the same period the Council approved in principle the transfer of responsibility for liaison with certain areas in central and south Africa from the European and African (Paris) regional office to the middle east (Cairo) office, and for certain states and territories in the Caribbean from the South American (Lima) regional office to the North American (Montreal) office. The Council then granted a request from the Civil Aviation Board, as agents of the Allied High Commission for Germany, to participate as observers in regional and special meetings of ICAO that discussed the provision of facilities or introduction of procedures for civil aviation in areas including territories under the Allied High Commission's control. In addition the Council accepted from the government of Switzerland an offer of 200,000 Swiss francs towards the maintenance of various north Atlantic safety services. The Council in the closing meeting of the eleventh session: 1) approved some 21 recommendations of the Meteorology Division's third session; 2) took note of specifications for a 1:500,000 Chart Series of Europe and directed that the specifications be brought to the attention of the contracting states for appropriate action; 3) granted a request from Pakistan for an advisory opinion and interpretation of the Transit Agreement and of Article 6 of the Convention regarding the right of an aircraft of a contracting party to fly without landing over the territory of another contracting state; and 4) set the opening date of the next Council session.