SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Original English text]
Objection to jurisdiction raised by the United States of America  Bank Markazi as a “company” for the purposes of the 1955 Treaty of Amity  Judgment of 13 February 2019  Nature of the activity.
1. I agree with all the decisions in this case, with the exception of the first one, whereby the Court upheld

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Interpretation of Article III, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity  Meaning of the phrase “shall have their juridical status recognized”  Viewed in light of object and purpose of Treaty and against historical background, the recognition of “juridical status” in question concerns the legal personality and legal capacity of companies  Provision not equivalent to a warranty that companies shall have their corporate form respected in any circumstances.

30 MARCH 2023
JUDGMENT
CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
___________
CERTAINS ACTIFS IRANIENS (RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’IRAN c. ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE)
30 MARS 2023
ARRÊT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-20
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21-32
II. QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY 33-73
A. Objection to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae: question whether Bank Markazi is a “company” within the meaning of the Treaty of Amity 34-54