Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom) - Judgment

CommmiquéNo, 52/14
Unofficial

The following inforniibtiorfrom the Registryof the International
Caurt of Justice ha8 been communicate o the Iress:
. I

The Internation~ Clourt of Justice delivered Its Judpent today
in the Anbatielos Cuse (~relimina~ Objection), bstween 'Greece and the
United Kingdam of Gre?-t Britain and Mortkern Irelmd.

These proceedhgs h2,v-ebeen instituted by En Application by the
Hollenic Goverment which, having takcn up the case of one of its
nationals, the shipownerArnbatielos, had przyed thc Court to declase that
the clzim which the Latter had m.da 2-gainst khe Gov~ment of the United
Kingdom rnust, 'inaccordrince with the terrns af the Trceties concluded in

1886 and in 1926 bctwesn Greece the United Kingdom, be suhitted to
mbLtration. The Goveinmcnt of the United Kingdom on the other hauid,
had contcndedthat the Court l~ckedJurTsdictio no decide on that
question. In its 3udgm~3nt delivcrch today, the Court findç by ken votes
to five th<?,tit hns jurisdictiot ns dccidc i'rhether the United Kingdom is .
undor an obligction to submit ko arbitrntion the difference as to the
v22idity of the hbil-ticlos c2(7.im, inso fns es this claim is based on
@ = the hglo-Hellenic Trcaty of 1RE6.

Judgc Levi Carneiro 2nd M. Spiropouloa, Judgc ad hoc, have appended
thcir individua lpinions to thc Judpent, Fiire Judges - SirArnold
McNair, Basdevar%, Zoricic, Klaestad 2nd Bsu 1~5- have appznded their
dissenking O-inions t O the Judgment.

K

X 3E

In its J~dp~ent, th? Court indicntcû the nxture of hbatielost s
claim: it was nllt+g¢à that hc had sufferedconsiderable lass in con-

scqucnceof a çontrzct phich h¢ concluded in 1919 with the Govehent of
the United Kingdom (rcprese~tcd by th? Ministry of shiPping) for the
purchascof ninc siemship3 whichwcre thcn undcr construction, and in
conseQuence of cert~~in adverse judicial decisions in the kglish Courts
in connection thsrzwith. Tho Court refers ko the treaty clrruses relieci
on by the Pzrtizs: thc Protocol annax~d to tho Traaty of 1886,which
* providesthok controversics thnt =y arlsein conncctio wnith thnt treaty
shall be rcferrcd to 2rbitr;:Lion; the Tre?.tg of 1926, pihich contains a
shilar clzusc ; the Dcçlerat irin accompanyi~g that trcaty, which states
that thelatter doss nui prcjudiçe clairfis based on ihc Trentg of 1880 and

thatany diffcrznce that m-ey aise in rcspoct of suchclaims shall be
subrr-ittodto ~rbitrat,ion in accordznce witb the provisions of the
Protocol of 1g86.

The Court thcn gcleson to revicw the submisslons of the Parties
as they wore developcd during the proceedlngs. It is evident fron?
this review thzt both Prrtics ask the Court. to decide as to its
jurisdiction 2nd tikcther tllerc is an obligntion to submit the differencc
to arbitrction. it 5s clso evidcnt that bath Parties enviseged that
the Court itself might wldertakc the function of srbitrakion, but there
w2s sornc doubt zs to the conditions vhi. thsy wodd considar requisite,
and in the absence of a cleas agreement bctwcen the Parties on that

point, th2 Court considcrs that it hhs no jurisdiction to go into al1 the
merits of thc presmt cnsc.

The Court thcn proceods to examine the differcnt erpents put
fornard by tho UnitedKingdom Goverment in support of its Preliminary
0bjccti.on to thc juslsdicLioa nnd those advanced by the Kellenic
Govcrrimcnt in reply theretu.. Article 29 of the ~reat~of 1926 enablgs

either ....

3either of ..the Pafti~s to submit to the Court any dispute as to the
interpretction or the nppljcation of my of the provisions of that
Trecty. Sut it has no retroactive effect; accordinglyt, he Court
fhds it impossibleta sccapt the thewy advanced on behalf of the
HellenicGot-ernment, that where in the 1726 Treaty there are substantive
provisions similar to substantive provisions of the 18$6 Treaty, then
under Article 29 of the 1926 Treaty the Court can adjudiçate upon the
validity of a clak bnsad on an allegedbreach of any of these similar
provisions, even if the alloged breach took place wholly bcforo the new

Trezty came into force. Tt is therefare impossible to hold that any of
its provisions nust be decmed to have been in force earlies. Moreover,
the Dcclaration accompanying the Treaty of 1926 makcs no distinction
between claims bascd on one classof provisions of the Treaty of 1885
and thosc based on mothcr class; they are al1 placed on the same footing,
a.qd differcnccs relating to tneis validity arc rcferablo to the same
arbitral procedure.

The Govemnent of the United Kingdom has contended - and that is
the most important of its arguments - that the Dcclaration was not a
part of the Trzaty within the noaning of Article 29. The Court does
not agxee lirith that view. The Trcaty, 5he customs schedule appended

thereto and the Dcclaratlon mre included by the plenipotentiarii es a-
sulglc document, published in the same wag in the English TreatySorics, e
and registercd mder a singl~nmber with the League of Nations. The
instruments of rctification of the two Parties cite .th3th~ee texts
without making any distinction betwecn them. The British instrument
of ratification even declares that the Tresty is I1wordf5r kiordas
f01Lows~~: after which it goes onlto cite the three texts in their
entirety. Moreover, the vcry nature of the ~eclaration also points to
the sme conclusion. It records an undcrst~nding arrived at by the
Parties beforc tha Trcsty of 1926 was signe? as to what the Sreaty, or '
as Counsel for the Goverm-ent of the Unitcd ICingdom proferred ta put it,

the replacemznt of thc Trcnty of 1886 by the Treatyof 1926, wodd not
prejudice: For these reasons, the Court holds that thc prcvlsions of
the Declaration are provisions of the Trenty within the meznlng of Article
29, Cofisequ~ntlg, this Court has jurisdictiotn odccide any dispute
as t o the lntespretatio or application of the Declnration and, in a
proper case, to adjudgcthat there shodd be a reference to a Commission
of Arbitsation. ihy differsnccs as to the validits of the clainls
itivolved will,l-~owe&r, hcve to be arSitrated, as Govidcd in the
Declaration itself, by the Commission,

The Unlted Kingdom has also contended that the Declaration only e.
covcred clairris formulated beforc it cme into force. But the DeclaraLion

contains no ref~rence tû any dntc. Moreover, the reçult of such an
interpretation would .bcthat clajms baszd on the Treaty of 1886, but
brougktafter the conclusion of the Treaty of 1926, would be left
without a solution. They would not be subject to arbitretion under
eithcr Treaty, althoughth? provisionon tifhosebrckch the clah was
bascd might appenr in bath and dght tl~us have bcen in force tvithout a
brezk since 1886. The:Court cttnnot accept an interpretetio nhich
wculd have a resuït obviously contrary to the languagc of the Declaration
and to the contlnuous will of both Parties to sub~~it all differences ta
arbitraiion of one Und or anothar.

For "these reasons, theCourt finds, by thirteen votes to tk,
that it is riithout jurisdictio no decide on the merits of the Ambatielos

c1ai.m; and by ken votes to five, khat It Ilas jurisdictio o decide
wkether the United Ilingdciin is under an obligation to submit to arbitra-
tion, in accordance with the Declaration of 1926, thc diffcrence as to
the validity of the fimbatielos claim,in so far as this cla1in-îs based
on the Treaty of 1886.

The Hague, Julylst,'l952.