Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
AMBATIELOS CASE(MERITS)
Judgmentof 19 May1953
The proceedingsin the Ambatieloscase(Merits:Obliga- promptedbythe samemotivesandadoptedthe samemethod
tionto Arbitrate),betweenGreeceand theUnitedKingdom of arbitration.Bythe JudgmentofJuly lst, 1952,themerits
of Great Britain and Northern Ireladadlweninstitutedby of the Ambatielos claimwerefoundto be outsidethejuris-
an ApplicationbytheHellenic Governme~~w t,hich, having diction of the Court which consists solely of deciding
taken up the case of one of its national!;,the shipowner whether the United Kingdom is undeanobligationtoaccept
Ambatielos,prayedthe Coua todeclaretha.ttheclaim which arbitration. Theliimitedjurisdiction of the Court is to be
the latterhad made againstthe Governmentof the United clearly distinguishedfrom the jurisdictionof the Commis-
Kingdomshouldbe submittedto arbitrationin accordance sionof Arbitration.TheCourt mustrefrain from pronounc-
with Anglo-Greek Agreements concluded in 1886(Treaty ing final judgmentuponany questionof fact or law falling
andProtocol)andin 1926(Declaration).FollowingaPrelim- withinthemerits; its task wilavebeen completedwhenit
inary Objectionlodgedby the UnitedKingdom, theCourt has decided whetherthe difference with regard to the
foundthatithadjurisdictiontoadjudicateonthisquestionby Ambatielos claimis adifferenceastothevalidityof a claim
aJudgmentdeliveredonJuly Ist, 1952. onbehalfof a priviiteperson based on theprovisionsof the
InitsJudgmentonthemeritsthe Courtfoundbytenvotes gation binding theJnitedKingdom to acceptarbitration.-
to fourthatthe UnitedKingdomwasunder anobligationto
submitto arbitration,in accordancewiththe Declarationof Whatmeaningis,to be attributedto theword"based" on
1926,the difference asto the validity,underthe Treatyof theTreatyof 1886?Intheopinionof the GreekGovernment
1886,ofthe Ambatielosclaim. it wouldsufficethattheclaim shouldnotprimafacie appear
Sir Arnold McNair,President, JudgesElasdevant,Klae- tobeunconnected withtheTreaty.In the viewoftheUnited
stadandRoadappendedtothe Judgmentajointstatementof Kingdom,itisnecessaryfortheCourttodetermine,asasub-
theirdissentingopinion. stantive issue,he:therthe claim is actuallyor genuinely
based ontheTreaty.The Courtis unableto accepteitherof
theseviews.Thefirinwouldconstituteaninsufficientreason;
the secondwouldlead tothe substitutionofthe Courtforthe
Commissionof Arbitrationinvassinrron amint whichcon-
InitsJudgment,theCourtbeginsby definingthequestion stitutesoneoftheprincipalel&ents;f theclaim.TheCom-
before it: is the United Kingdomunder im obligationto missionalone hasjiurisdictionto adjudicateon the merits;
acceptarbitrationofthedifferencebetweenthatGovernment templates that the verificationof the allegations of fact
andthe HellenicGovernmentconcerning thevalidityof the should bethedutycrfthe Commission,while thedetermina-
Ambatielosclaim, in so far as this claim is based on the tionofthequestionwhetherthefactsallegedconstituteavio-
Treaty of1886?The distinctive characteroithis caseis that lationof theTreatyof 1886should formthetaskof another
quite unlike the Mavrommatis hlestine Concessions, tribunal.
decidedby the PermanentCoua of International Justicein
1924theCourtiscalledupontodecide,notitsownjurisdic- Atthetimeofthesignatureofthe Declarationof 1926,the
tion,but whethera disputeshouldbereferredto anothertri- Britishand Greek Governmentsneverintendedthat one of
bunalforarbitration. them alone or somc:other organ shoulddecide whethera
The Partieshave restedtheir case on the Declarationof claim was genuinelybased on the Treatyof 1886;it must
1926andthe Judgmentof the Courtof July lst, 1952.The havebeentheir intention that the genuinenessf the Treaty
Declarationwasagreeduponforthepurposeofsafeguarding basis of anyclaim, if contested, shoulbe authoritatively
the interestsofthe Partieswithrespecttoclaimsonbehalfof decidedbytheCom~nission ofArbitration, togetherwith any
private personsbasedon the Treatyof 1886,for which,on otherquestionsrelatingtothe merits.
theterminationofthat'Ikeatyt,herewouldhavebeennorem- For the purposeof determining the obligationof the
edyintheeventofthefailureofthePartiestoarriveatamica- UnitedKingdom to acceptarbitration,theexpressionclaims
blesettlements.The Agreementof 1926 relatesto a limited based onthe'Iteatyof 1886cannotbeunderstoodasmeaning
categoryof differenceswhichthe Agreementof 1886pro- claimsactuallysupportableunder thatTreaty.Ofcourseit is
vided shouldbe settledbyarbitration,namelydifferencesas not enough thata claim should havea remote connection
tothevalidityofclaimsonbehalfofprivatepersonsbasedon withtheTreatyforit tobe basedonit;ontheotherhandit is
the Treaty of 1886. But in both cases the Parties were not necessary that ,anunassailable legal basis should be
Continued on next pageshown for an alleged Treatyviolation. In its context,the inArticleXoftheTreatyof 1886 which wouldpermitGreece
expressionmeansclaimsdependingforsuppartonthe provi- to invoke the benefitsof Treatiesconcludedby the United
sionsofthe Treatyof 1886,sothattheclaimswilleventually Kingdomwiththirdstatesandobtainredress fora denialof
standorfallaccordingasthelc~rovisionoftheTreatyarecon- justice Mr. Ambatieloswould havesuffered-if the facts
struedinonewayoranother. Consequentlyi,nrespectofthe allegedweretrue.
Ambatielosclaim,itisnot necessaryforthe Courttofindthat
theHellenicGovernment's interpretatioonf theTreatyis the The other contention,based on Article XV, rests on an
onlycorrectinterpretation:itisenough todeterminewhether interpretationofthewords"free accessto theCourtsofJus-
thearguments advanced bytheHellenic Governmenitnsup- tice" appearinginthat Article;againonthe assumptionthat
portofits interpretationareofasufficientlyplausiblecharac- thefactsallegedaretrue,itiscontendedthatMr.Ambatielos
ter to warrant a conclusionthat the claim is based on the didnothave"freeaccess"toEnglishcourts.
Treaty.In other words,if aninterpretationlppearsto be an Having regard tothese contentions, aswellas the diver-
arguableone,whether or not it ultimateyrevails,thenthere genceofviewswhichgive risetothem,and bearinginmind
arereasonablegroundsforconcludingthattheclaim isbased especiallythepossibleinterpretatioputforwardbytheHel-
ontheTreaty.Thevalidityoftherespectivearguments would lenic Governmentof the provisionsof the Treatyof 1886
bedeterminedbythe Commissionof Arbitrationin passing which itinvokes,theCourtmustconcludethat thisis a case
uponthe meritsofthedifference. in whichthe Hellenic Government is presentinagclaimon
behalfof a privateperson basedontheTreatyof 1886, and
The Courtthenproceeds todeal withtwo of the conten- that the differencebetweenthe Partiesis the kindof differ-
tions put forward by Greece and contested!by the United encewhich,accordingto theAgreementof 1926, shouldbe
Kingdom. One isbasedon tlhemost-favoured-nation clause subminedtoarbitration.
Summary of the Judgment of 19 May 1953