Discontinuance
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 17 December 2013 Timor-Leste instituted proceedings against Australia with regard to the seizure and subsequent detention “by Agents of Australia of documents, data and other property which belongs to Timor‑Leste and/or which Timor‑Leste has the right to protect under international law”. Timor-Leste contended that these items were seized in the offices of one of its legal advisers in Narrabundah, Australian Capital Territory, allegedly under a warrant issued under Article 25 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act of 1979. Timor‑Leste claimed that the items seized include documents and data containing correspondence between the Government of Timor‑Leste and its legal advisers relating to a pending arbitration under the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty between Timor‑Leste and Australia. As basis for jurisdiction of the Court, Timor‑Leste invoked its declaration of 21 September 2012 under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and that made by Australia on 22 March 2002 under the same provision.
On 17 December 2013 Timor‑Leste also filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures in order to protect its rights and to prevent the use of the seized documents and data by Australia against its interests and rights in the pending arbitration and with regard to other matters relating to the Timor Sea and its resources. Timor‑Leste further requested the President of the Court to exercise his power under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court.
In a letter dated 18 December 2013, the President of the Court, acting pursuant to Article 74, called on Australia to “act in such a way as to enable any Order the Court will make on the Request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects, in particular to refrain from any act which might cause prejudice to the rights claimed by the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste in the present proceedings”.
After hearing the Parties, the Court, in an Order dated 3 March 2014 on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Timor‑Leste, decided that Australia should ensure that the content of the seized material was not in any way or at any time used by any person or persons to the disadvantage of Timor‑Leste until the case was concluded; should keep under seal the seized documents and electronic data and any copies thereof until further decision of the Court; and should not interfere in any way in communications between Timor‑Leste and its legal advisers in connection with the arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of 20 May 2002 between Timor‑Leste and Australia, with any future bilateral negotiations concerning maritime delimitation, or with any other related procedure between the two States, including this case before the Court.
Hearings were scheduled to begin on 17 September 2014, but they did not take place, since the Parties, by a joint letter of 1 September 2014, requested the Court “to adjourn the hearing . . . in order to enable them to seek an amicable settlement”.
Several months later, in a letter of 25 March 2015, Australia stated that it “wishe[d] to return the materials removed from the premises of Collaery Lawyers on 3 December 2013” that were the subject of the proceedings, and consequently requested a modification of the Court’s Order of 3 March 2014 indicating provisional measures. By an Order of 22 April 2015, the Court authorized the return of the documents and copies at issue.
By a letter of 2 June 2015, Timor‑Leste informed the Court that it wished to discontinue the proceedings. Australia having informed the Court that it had no objection to the discontinuance of the case, the President of the Court, by an Order dated 11 June 2015, placed on record the discontinuance by Timor‑Leste of the proceedings and directed that the case be removed from the List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
17 December 2013
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
13 January 2014
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
21 January 2014
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 20 January 2014, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 21 January 2014, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 22 January 2014, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 22 January 2014, at 5 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Orders
Request for the indication of provisional measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Request for the modification of the Order indicating provisional measures of 3 March 2014
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
18 December 2013
Timor-Leste institutes proceedings against Australia and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Available in:
20 December 2013
Proceedings instituted by Timor-Leste against Australia - Urgent communication to Australia from the President under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court
Available in:
23 December 2013
Proceedings instituted by Timor-Leste against Australia - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 20 to Wednesday 22 January 2014
Available in:
22 January 2014
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Timor-Leste
Available in:
7 February 2014
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
25 February 2014
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - Request for the indication of provisional measures filed by Timor-Leste - The Court to deliver its Order on Monday 3 March 2014 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
3 March 2014
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - The Court finds that Australia shall ensure that the content of the seized material is not used to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste
Available in:
5 September 2014
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - The Court decides to grant the Parties’ request to postpone the oral proceedings due to open on 17 September 2014
Available in:
6 May 2015
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - The Court authorizes the return of all the documents and data seized on 3 December 2013 by Australia from the business premises of a legal adviser to Timor-Leste
Available in:
12 June 2015
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) - Case removed from the Court’s List at the request of Timor-Leste
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 21 December 2009, the Kingdom of Belgium initiated proceedings against the Swiss Confederation in respect of a dispute concerning primarily the interpretation and application of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
The Memorial of Belgium was filed on 23 November 2010. On 18 February 2011, Switzerland raised preliminary objections in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application.
By a letter dated 21 March 2011, the Agent of Belgium informed the Court that his Government “in concert with the Commission of the European Union, considers that it can discontinue the proceedings instituted [by Belgium] against Switzerland”.
Since Switzerland did not oppose the said discontinuance, the Court, placing on record the discontinuance by Belgium of the proceedings, ordered that the case be removed from its List (Order of 5 April 2011).
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
17 February 2011
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Orders
Press releases
22 December 2009
Belgium initiates proceedings against Switzerland in respect of a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Available in:
17 February 2010
Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings
Available in:
24 August 2010
Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland) - Extension of time-limits for filing the initial written pleadings
Available in:
12 April 2011
Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland) - Case removed from the Court's List at the request of Belgium
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 26 April 2006, the Commonwealth of Dominica filed an Application instituting proceedings against Switzerland concerning alleged violations by the latter of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as well of other international instruments and rules, with respect to a diplomatic envoy of Dominica to the United Nations in Geneva.
By letter of 15 May 2006, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Dominica informed the Court that his Government “did not wish to go on with the proceedings instituted against Switzerland” and requested the Court to make an Order “officially recording [their] unconditional discontinuance” and “directing the removal of the case from the General List”. By letter of 24 May 2006, the Swiss Ambassador in The Hague advised the Court that he had informed the competent Swiss authorities of the discontinuance as thus notified. Accordingly, on 9 June 2006, the Court made an Order in which, after noting that the Government of the Swiss Confederation had not taken any step in the proceedings in the case, it recorded the discontinuance of the proceedings by the Commonwealth of Dominica and ordered that the case be removed from the List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Orders
Press releases
26 April 2006
Dominica brings a case against Switzerland to the Court in a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and other international instruments and rules with respect to a diplomatic envoy of Dominica to the United Nations in Geneva
Available in:
12 June 2006
Case concerning the Status vis-à-vis the Host State of a Diplomatic Envoy to the United Nations (Dominica v. Switzerland) - Case removed from the Court's List at the request of Dominica
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 28 October 2009, the Ambassador of Honduras to the Netherlands filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Brazil in respect of a
“dispute between [the two States] relat[ing] to legal questions concerning diplomatic relations and associated with the principle of non‑intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, a principle incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations”.
It was alleged therein that Brazil had “breached its obligations under Article 2 (7) of the Charter and those under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”.
At the end of the Application the Court was requested
“to adjudge and declare that Brazil does not have the right to allow the premises of its Mission in Tegucigalpa to be used to promote manifestly illegal activities by Honduran citizens who have been staying within it for some time now and that it shall cease to do so”.
To found the Court’s jurisdiction, Honduras invoked Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, signed on 30 April 1948 and, under the terms of Article LX thereof, officially called the “Pact of Bogotá”, ratified without reservation by Honduras on 13 January 1950 and by Brazil on 9 November 1965.
An original copy of the Application was sent to the Government of Brazil on 28 October 2009. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was also informed about the filing of that Application.
By a letter dated 28 October 2009, received in the Registry on 30 October 2009 under the cover of a letter dated 29 October 2009 from Mr. Jorge Arturo Reina, Permanent Representative of Honduras to the United Nations, Ms Patricia Isabel Rodas Baca, Minister for External Relations in the Government headed by Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, informed the Court, inter alia, that the Ambassador of Honduras to the Netherlands was not the legitimate representative of Honduras before the Court and that “Ambassador Eduardo Enrique Reina is being appointed as the sole legitimate representative of the Government of Honduras to the International Court of Justice”. A copy of the communication, with annexes, from the Permanent Representative of Honduras to the United Nations was sent on 3 November 2009 to Brazil, as well as to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Court decided that, given the circumstances, no other action would be taken in the case until further notice.
By a letter dated 30 April 2010, received in the Registry on 3 May 2010, Mr. Mario Miguel Canahuati, Minister for External Relations of Honduras, informed the Court that the Honduran Government was “not going on with the proceedings initiated by the application” and that it “accordingly withdraws this application from the Registry”. Consequently, the President of the Court made an Order on 12 May 2010 in which, after noting that Brazil had not taken any step in the proceedings in the case, he recorded the discontinuance by Honduras of the proceedings and ordered that the case be removed from the List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Orders
Press releases
29 October 2009
Filing in the Registry of the Court of an “Application instituting proceedings by the Republic of Honduras against the Federative Republic of Brazil”
Available in:
19 May 2010
Certain Questions concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v. Brazil) - Case removed from the Court's List at the request of Honduras
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda “for acts of armed aggression committed . . . in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”. In addition to the cessation of the alleged acts, Congo sought reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of the respective respondent States.
In its Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda, the DRC referred, as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction, to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the New York Convention of 10 December 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and, lastly, Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court. However, the Government of the DRC informed the Court on 15 January 2001 that it intended to discontinue the proceedings instituted against Burundi and Rwanda, stating that it reserved the right to invoke subsequently new grounds of jurisdiction of the Court. The two cases were therefore removed from the List on 30 January 2001.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
23 June 1999
Available in:
Written proceedings
21 April 2000
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Orders
Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
Press releases
23 June 1999
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - The Democratic Republic of Congo institutes proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda on account of "acts of armed aggression"
Available in:
25 October 1999
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - The Court fixes time-limits for the filing of written pleadings and decides that in two cases the proceedings shall first address questions of jurisdiction and admissibility
Available in:
1 February 2001
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - The two cases are removed from the List at the request of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 31 March 2008, Ecuador filed an Application instituting proceedings against Colombia in respect of a dispute concerning the alleged “aerial spraying [by Colombia] of toxic herbicides at locations near, at and across its border with Ecuador”. Ecuador maintained that “the spraying has already caused serious damage to people, to crops, to animals, and to the natural environment on the Ecuadorian side of the frontier, and poses a grave risk of further damage over time”. It further contended that it had made “repeated and sustained efforts to negotiate an end to the fumigations” but that “these negotiations have proved unsuccessful”. As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, Ecuador invoked Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá of 30 April 1948, to which both States were parties. Ecuador also relied on Article 32 of the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
By a letter dated 12 September 2013, the Agent of Ecuador, referring to Article 89 of the Rules of Court and to an Agreement between the Parties dated 9 September 2013 “that fully and finally resolves all of Ecuador’s claims against Colombia” in the case, notified the Court that his Government wished to discontinue the proceedings in the case. By a letter of the same date, the Agent of Colombia informed the Court, pursuant to Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that it made no objection to the discontinuance of the case as requested by Ecuador.
According to the letters received from the Parties, the Agreement of 9 September 2013 established, inter alia, an exclusion zone, in which Colombia would not conduct aerial spraying operations, created a Joint Commission to ensure that spraying operations outside that zone had not caused herbicides to drift into Ecuador and, so long as they had not, provided a mechanism for the gradual reduction in the width of the said zone; according to the letters, the Agreement set out operational parameters for Colombia’s spraying programme, recorded the agreement of the two Governments to ongoing exchanges of information in that regard, and established a dispute settlement mechanism.
In consequence, the President of the Court, on 13 September 2013, made an Order recording the discontinuance by Ecuador of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the Court’s List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
1 February 2012
Available in:
Orders
Press releases
1 April 2008
Ecuador institutes proceedings against Colombia with regard to a dispute concerning the alleged aerial spraying by Colombia of toxic herbicides over Ecuadorian territory
Available in:
2 June 2008
Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings
Available in:
2 July 2010
Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia) - The Court authorizes the submission of a Reply by Ecuador and a Rejoinder by Colombia and fixes time-limits for the filing of these pleadings
Available in:
21 October 2011
Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia) - Extension of the time-limit for the filing of Colombia's Rejoinder
Available in:
17 September 2013
Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia) - Case removed from the Court’s List at the request of the Republic of Ecuador
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 9 December 2002, the Republic of the Congo filed an Application instituting proceedings against France, seeking the annulment of the investigation and prosecution measures taken by the French judicial authorities further to a complaint concerning crimes against humanity and torture allegedly committed in the Congo against individuals of Congolese nationality filed by various human rights associations against the President of the Republic of the Congo, Mr. Denis Sassou Nguesso, the Congolese Minister of the Interior, General Pierre Oba, and other individuals including General Norbert Dabira, Inspector-General of the Congolese armed forces, and General Blaise Adoua, Commander of the Presidential Guard.
In its Application, the Congo indicated that it sought to found the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, “on the consent of the French Republic, which [would] certainly be given”. In accordance with that provision, the Congo’s Application was transmitted to the French Government and no action was taken in the proceedings. By a letter dated 8 April 2003, France indicated that it “consent[ed] to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Application pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5”, and the case was thus entered in the Court’s List. It was the first time, since the adoption of Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court in 1978, that a State thus accepted the invitation of another State to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a case against it.
The Application of the Congo was accompanied by a request for the indication of a provisional measure seeking “an order for the immediate suspension of the proceedings being conducted by the investigating judge of the Meaux Tribunal de grande instance”, and hearings on that request were held on 28 and 29 April 2003. In its Order of 17 June 2003, the Court concluded that no evidence had been placed before it of any irreparable prejudice to the rights in dispute and that, consequently, circumstances were not such as to require the exercise of its power to indicate provisional measures.
Hearings were scheduled to open in the case on 6 December 2010, when, by a letter dated 5 November 2010, the Agent of the Congo, referring to Article 89 of the Rules of Court, informed the Court that his Government was “withdraw[ing] its Application instituting proceedings” and requested the Court “to make an Order officially recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the List”. A copy of that letter was immediately communicated to the French Government, which responded in a letter dated 8 November 2010 that it had no objection to the discontinuance of the proceedings by the Congo. Accordingly, by an Order of 16 November 2010, the Court placed on record the discontinuance of the proceedings by the Congo and ordered that the case be removed from the List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
11 April 2003
Available in:
Written proceedings
9 December 2002
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 28 April 2003, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Shi presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 28 April 2003, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Shi presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 29 April 2003, at 9.30 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Shi presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday, 29 April 2003, at 12.15 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Shi presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Other documents
8 April 2003
Available in:
Orders
Request for the Indication of a Provisional Measure
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Decision regarding submission of Reply and Rejoinder; fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
9 December 2002
The Republic of the Congo seises the International Court of Justice of a dispute with France
Available in:
11 April 2003
The French Republic consents to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to entertain an Application filed by the Republic of the Congo against France - The Court enters the new case in its List and sets a date for the hearings on the request for the indication of a provisional measure
Available in:
23 April 2003
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Request for the indication of a provisional measure - Programme of hearings
Available in:
29 April 2003
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Conclusion of the hearings on the request for the indication of a provisional measure
Available in:
11 June 2003
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Request for the indication of a provisional measure - Court to give its Order on Tuesday 17 June 2003 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
17 June 2003
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - The Court rejects the request for the indication of a provisional measure submitted by the Republic of the Congo
Available in:
16 July 2003
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
18 June 2004
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - The Court fixes time-limits for the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder
Available in:
13 December 2004
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Extension of time-limits for the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder
Available in:
3 January 2005
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Further extension of time-limits for the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder
Available in:
13 July 2005
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Further extension of time-limits for the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder
Available in:
12 January 2006
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Further extension of time-limits for the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder
Available in:
23 November 2009
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of additional pleadings
Available in:
17 November 2010
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) Case removed from the Court's List at the request of the Republic of the Congo
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda “for acts of armed aggression committed . . . in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”. In addition to the cessation of the alleged acts, Congo sought reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of the respective respondent States.
In its Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda, the DRC referred, as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction, to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the New York Convention of 10 December 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and, lastly, Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court. However, the Government of the DRC informed the Court on 15 January 2001 that it intended to discontinue the proceedings instituted against Burundi and Rwanda, stating that it reserved the right to invoke subsequently new grounds of jurisdiction of the Court. The two cases were therefore removed from the List on 30 January 2001.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
23 June 1999
Available in:
Written proceedings
21 April 2000
Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility
Available in:
Orders
Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
23 June 1999
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) - The Democratic Republic of Congo institutes proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda on account of "acts of armed aggression"
Available in:
25 October 1999
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) - The Court fixes time-limits for the filing of written pleadings and decides that in two cases the proceedings shall first address questions of jurisdiction and admissibility
Available in:
20 October 2000
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - Extension of the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorials of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Available in:
1 February 2001
Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) - The two cases are removed from the List at the request of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
In May 1973, Pakistan instituted proceedings against India concerning 195 Pakistani prisoners of war whom, according to Pakistan, India proposed to hand over to Bangladesh, which was said to intend trying them for acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. India stated that there was no legal basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the matter and that Pakistan’s Application was without legal effect. Pakistan having also filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held public sittings to hear observations on this subject; India was not represented at the hearings. In July 1973, Pakistan asked the Court to postpone further consideration of its Request in order to facilitate the negotiations which were due to begin. Before any written pleadings had been filed, Pakistan informed the Court that negotiations had taken place, and requested the Court to record discontinuance of the proceedings. Accordingly, the case was removed from the List by an Order of 15 December 1973.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
11 May 1973
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 4 to 26 June 1973 (Request for the indication of interim measures of protection)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Orders
Request for the indication of interim measures of protection and fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Press releases
25 May 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais - L'audience aura lieu le mardi 29 mai 1973 à 10 heures (French version only)
Available in:
28 May 1973
Affaire relative au procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais - Report de l'ouverture des audiences (French version only)
Available in:
1 June 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais - L'audience aura lieu le lundi 4 juin 1973 à 15 heures (French version only)
Available in:
5 June 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais - Audiences du 4 et 5 juin 1973 (French version only)
Available in:
14 June 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais - Les audiences se poursuivront le mardi 19 juin 1973 (French version only)
Available in:
18 June 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais - Report de l'audience publique au mardi 26 juin 1973 (French version only)
Available in:
16 July 1973
Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais (Pakistan c. Inde) - Ordonnance du 13 juillet 1973 (French version only)
Available in:
29 September 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais (Pakistan c. Inde) - Report de la date d'expiration des délais pour la présentation de pièces de procédure écrite (French version only)
Available in:
15 December 1973
Affaire relative au Procès de prisonniers de guerre pakistanais (Pakistan c. Inde) - Radiation du rôle (French version only)
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 23 September 1958, Belgium instituted proceedings against Spain in connection with the adjudication in bankruptcy in Spain, in 1948, of the above-named company, formed in Toronto in 1911. The Application stated that the company’s share-capital belonged largely to Belgian nationals and claimed that the acts of organs of the Spanish State whereby the company had been declared bankrupt and liquidated were contrary to international law and that Spain, as responsible for the resultant damage, was under an obligation either to restore or to pay compensation for the liquidated assets. In May 1960, Spain filed preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, but before the time-limit fixed for its observations and submissions thereon Belgium informed the Court that it did not intend to go on with the proceedings. Accordingly, the case was removed from the List by an Order of 10 April 1961.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.