I.C.J. Camuniqué no. 5kh q
(unof ficial)
The follordnginf o~rnation from the 8egistry of the Internat ional
Court of Justice has been comunicated Lo the press:
Todsy, Jme lSth, 1954, the International Coud of Justice
delivered its Jument ii?the Pi~netary Gold Case, kirought before the
Court by an Application of the Italian Republic against the French
Republic,theUnited Kingdoni of Great Brriain and Nodhern Irelmd and
the United States of ilmerica.
Th2 Couri; had been rerj-ested tu detemlne certain legd questions
upon which depandad the delivery to Italy or to the United Kingdom
of 2 auantity of monetary gold removeci by the Germas from Rame in
19.43, rccovered in &mmy md fomd tc belong to Albania. The United
Kingfion pointed cut that the Court had fond that fibania was under an
obligztion to pay compens;:tfnn to the United Kingdois for the dmage
caused by the explosions in the Gorfu Channel in 19.46 and that the
c?mages duc to the United Kingdom hsd never been paid. For it,spart,
naly contended, in thil: Sirst place, that shz had a clairn ,against
m
I,lbania arising out of the rnsascras of confiscation alll,,!3~àlytaken
by the Albanian Governent In 19.43 a,nd, in t,hesecond place, that her
clab should have priority cver thst of thc Unitad Kingdom.
The It'talim Govemmznt , rel~ng on' the aatzncnt signed at
Washington on :;pril 2Tth, 1951 by the Cs~ermfients of Fr~nce, the United
Kingdon and the United States, referred thae t~ro questions to the Court.
But aftor filingher Applicztior,, Italy felt some doubt as to the
jurisdiction of thc Court md rcqucsted the Court to edjudicate on the
qucstian of jurisdiction as a prelhinary issue.
It is upon the questicsn of jurisdiction thct the Court adjudicated
U1 the present Judgment. me Court founc!first, unznimously, that
in the absence of the consent of idbznia, it r~as not authorizedto
adjudiçc?te upon Itdy 1s clain against XLbania; md, secondly , by
thirtxen votes tu one, th& the ~riority issuecauld only arise if the ,
first question hzd bcen decided in fzvour of Italy.
Judge Levi Carneira appended to the JuQSlent of the Court a
O statenent of his dissentingopinion (on the sccondcpestion); two other
Mer~bers of the Court (~rosidcn ,tSir LrnoLd McMzir, ancl Judge Read) ,
whilo voting in favour of the decision, appendec! to the JuQment a
declsr~tion and indivichal opinion respectively,
*
* +
Sumari. of the Jud~ment
Tho Judgment begm by recitingthc facts. The ori~5n of the
present case was to be foundin Part 111 of the rgreernent an E~paration
from Germmy (Paris, Januzry 11&h, 19.46), ~ihiich provided th& the
r~onetary gold found in Gerr-imy should be pooled 'for distributio n ong
the countrics entitled to receive a shere of it. France, the United
Kingdon and the United States vere sign2tories of the i~gremc~t, as
tell 2s klbmia and other States; Italy adhered subsequentl o
Part III. The irnplmontation, of the provisions of Part III baving been
entrusted to tha Governlients of France, thc Unitcd Kingdom ad the
United States, these three Gover~mcnt s appointecl a Tripartite ~6dssion
ta assist thenin this mztter, In respect of 2 quantity of gold romomd
fron Rone in 1943, which belonged to the Nationzl Bank of iilbmia, the
Tripartit c Corrfiision, confrcnted by con~peting claims of fibmia andI ltaly, W~S unable to give n cleciçion, The thrce Govexments then
zgrsed to submit thc que ski-onto an arbitrator (i'hçhington Agreement
i-t the snrne the, tlzey declzrecl (b!?..shington
of .!*ri1 25th, 1951).
Stz-tement of ths spine date)that if the finding of the arbitrakor
should be in f?.TOUT of LLbznia, they would be çonf rcnted by mother
problei~i, &CS the gold was clzirncd by It2ly 2nd Ly the United Kingdom
for rczsons not covered l;y Pmt III GE th2 Pc?ris Iigrcement; 2nd they
decided thiLt the gold llrouldbe clclivercd ta the United Ilkngdom in
partial satisf~ction of thc Judgrnent of the Court ,of Deccmber 15th,
1949, in the CorfuChmnel czse wilcsnlrnthin z certzin the-lhit from
the cinLe of the ~"i-bitriitorfs Opinion, either 2Jbania zpplied to the
Court requc.;ting it to zdjiadicnte cn her rights, or Pt2ly nad8 an
Y.pplication tc? the Court for the clotcrninntior! of the questions, firçt,
whethcr by reason of mg ri;;hts ~.rilich shecl~~irnectt possess es 2
rcsult of the ;Jbanicir!1a1~1of Jnnuery 13th, 1945, or -mdcr the
provisions of tIic Itnlicn Pc:l-ce Tr?r~ty,the gold should Ise cielivercd
to her rathvr thm to ::Lbania ,nd second, -v;heth5rthe Itzlim clalrn
shouldor should nct hi.ve priority ovzr ttiz claim of the lTnited Kingdom,
if this issue should arise.
Thus, within the prescribeù the-limit , Italy made an lLpplication m
to the Court which ws cumnulicated in the custornary mannes8 to States
entitled to zppeer Seforc the Court znd also trmsmittod to the
dhanian &Ivement.
The-lhits for the filhg of the Plendkgs wre then
. fixedby thc Court. Howevcr, insteadof i,rcsentliLg itsMemial on
the merits, thc Italian Governent questioncd the jurisdictiun of the
Court +,Oadjudicate upon thu first question rclating to the vdidity
of the Ikdian clah against hlban5-a. The Parties hzving bcen requested
tc subnit their vj-cws cn the problam thus raiscd, the ItalianGaverncient
contendcd thatthc Court ciidnet have a sufficient basisfor edjudication
on the &round that the prccccdin~s contnrnp1ait;edby thc Wzshington
St?itcnent werein reality directed agahst Albani3 and that Albauiia was
not 'a Party to the suit. As regarde thc unitehKingdom,it saw in the
challonge to the Court's jurisdictio nade by Ptdly a gramd for
quostioning thc.vLdidity of thc @plication vrhich, in the submission of
thc United Klngdun, should be ~egnrded es nnt canfoming ko the
9lasningto~ Statement or 3s invdid F--dwid, or 2s withdrawn. The two
other rcspandent Govermznt s , r'rmce md the 'Jnited States, did not O
2eposit fomal Subrnis sions.
lLftex-thus reciling the fscts, the Court dealfi with the views of
both sides, bcginning withthe Subnis3ions of the United Kingdam which
have just bocn ~~i~.i~..ri~od.Indeed, it ims unusualthat an zpplicm-t
State should cl~allengs the jurisdiction of the Court, but regzrd must
be hed for the clrcmstui.ces of the case: it wcs the $ïashUi&on Stütencnt,
enanating fron the t-iree Gcvemnents, that fomulated the uffer of juris-
diction accepte2 by Itt'Jy ?ad prc-detemincd the silbject-matter of the
suit; md it was eftcr teking the initial step that Italy felt some
dciubt and filed a Preliahsry Objection cin the basis of iz-ticle 62 of
the RuLes of Coufi. This l'Article did nut preclude the raising of a
prelkiinary obj~ckion by &rinppllcant in such circmstm-ces. By this
Obj cction , Italyl s accoptmce of jurisdiction of the Cocrt has not becortie
lcss coraplete cr less positive thm was conterfiplate2 in the Washington
Stateiilent. To requlrst the Court to settle the problem of jurisdiction
was not tmtm0un-L to asking the CouA not to detemine the questions
szt out in the Applieaticn mdar my circumstances. The ,'kpplic~tion was .
a real onz; and it rennined real ;mless it was withdr3.m; but it had
not been wïthdram.
Fuislly, tho ,',pplication, if not invalld wken It
was f iled, cciuld i~at have becorne invalid by reeson of the presentatiion of
the .... the objection to the jurisdiction.
Having thus found thatithad bor=n'veli&f s~iser! by the i,pplic2kion
2nd thzt that I',pplication still subsisted, the Court proceeded ta
consideration of the Itaficm Objection tm2 the jurisdiction in order to
decide Mhether rirnot it coulrl adjudicatc: upon the inerits of thc questions
submittcd to kt by the ?Lpplication. The Court noted that, in respect
of the relations Setwzcn the threc Govarnmcnts ad Italy, the ilpplicaticn
was in conf ornity bnth the offer made in the !:fashington Stztement,
both as regards the subjcct-matter of the suit and the Parties to it;
the Court thorefore hzd jurlsdlction to àeal with the questions
siihltted in the App1ica-t ion. But was this jurisdiction CO-extensive
dth the task cntrusted to the Court?
In this c~nnection the Court notcd th& it was not merely cdLed
upn to say whcthcr the gold should be delivsred to Itzly or to the
United Kingdon: it was requested to deterinine first cortain Legd
questions upon which the solution of the problen d~pendsd. The.first
aubiasiori in thedpplioation centre:! .round a cl2.k by Ztaly against
,'Abanla, a clah to indmnification for an allegedwrong, I'caly
belleved th& she possessed a right 'against rllbmia for the redress of
an int crnational wrong which , according to Itally, i'ilbania had comrnitted
against her. Tr! order, theref~re, to detemine v~hetheI tdy vas
entitled to rec~ive th^ gold, it was necessaryto detemine whethzr
;!lbani~ hac! cam;ïdt.ted a~y ir?tr=rnational imng against Jtaly, and whether
shz wzç under an obli,ztion Go paÿ comperlsation to her; and, if so,
to deterrntine dso th? mount of compensation. In order to decide such
questions, it wzs necessary .to dzterminc whether the dbmian law of
Jmuary 1945 was ccntrary to international Law. Irithe
detemination of the.5~ questions, which rclated to the lawful os
urJzwful character of certain zctions of iJbania vis-à-visItaly , only
tko States, Italy md 1,1hania, ware diïectljr interested.
To go inta th2 ncrits of such q~zstions muld be tc decide a
dispute lbetween It?-ly 2nd ~,lbmia - whiçh thc Court codd not do with0la.t
the consent of r:lbmi~. If thc Ccurt ùid so, it would run çounter ta
a well-establiçhecl principlc of internation-al law mboGied in the
Court ls Stc.;tutc, namely,th& the Court czn only mercise jurisdiction
over a State rcith its consent.
It has becn çontencled that !,lbmie might have intervened,
0 skoe i,riicle 62 of the Stütute gives to a thid Statc, which
considers thai it h2s m interest of a legs1 nature which may be
affected by thc decision in the case, the right to do 80;
thatthe
St2tute dia not prevont proceedings f rom continuing , even when a third
State which WOU^^ !c entitled ho interirene refrained fron doing so; md
thetconsequently the fect that i'Jbania had nbstained from doing so
should nok in& it iiipossible far the Court ta give judgment. But in
the presenk case, ;'lbaniafç legel interssts would not only be affected -
by a decision; they woulcl constitute the vzry subject-mztter of the
lec ci si on.Therefore, the Stdute could not be regardecl, evcn by
. impllc~tion, as zuthorizing that proceedings could be continuecl in the
absence of ilb,min.
Thc Court found that, althoughItaly and the three respondent
States h~d conferred jurisdiction upon the Court, it could not exercslee
this jurisdiction to adjudicateon the first clairfi submitted by Italg.
As for khi: second clairn, which rclntes ta the priority between the clai~is
~f Italy 2nd the United Kingdom, would snly arise when it hed
bsen uecidcd that, 2s bcti~~een Italy ail dbania, the golc! shauld go to
Itdy. This claim was consecy~cntly dcpendent upon the first cl2im in the
,',pplic~7~tion.The Coud nccordingly f ound that inasmuch ns it could not
zcljudic,.cteon the first Itdian claim,it shuuld refrain fron exminin,?
the sccund,
The H~gue, Junc l5th, 1954.C.I.J.
Les rsnseigner~lents suivmts, &am-nt du Greffe de la Cour
intcrn'tional~ dc Justice, ont été ixis la disposition de La
presse.
Lv Cour Intvr=tionale de Justice a t3r.u aujourdlhui1 ,2
juin,unc nouvellc aidience en l'affaire dc lréffet de jugements
du Tribmzl ,~.&iinistrztif des N,%tionç Unies accordant i~deimité,
iiiSpiropoulos ,epr8sen tmt du Gou~remencnt hellénique, a
pris 12 prrolc ci? prcnicr. Ensuite lc Très HariorrnbleSir Reginald
PLznninghi1~B1üller, Q,C,,M.P., a conncncé llexposh dcs vuss du
Gouvernenen du Roy?,ul~e-Uni.
Lz prochzinc 2.udienec de ln Cour sTouvrir~ l. Ilrjuin à
10 h. 30.
The following inforr~i~~tion fromthe Registry of thc Intcr-
nztionnl Court of Justice bas bczn commicatcd to the Prcss:
To-day, Jwic L2th, $954, thc Jntornationn lourt of Justice
hcld r: furthcr hcuing in thc caFn conceming the effect of awards
of compcnsntio nndc by thc ddministr,ltivo Tribunizl of the
Unitcd Mctions.
>laSpiropoulos, the represcntative of tlnc ltayzlHcllenic
1-Iwas followed by The Righi Honovr,.blc
Fovcrnmont, spolccfirst.
Sir R~giaald,MannUzghapBuller, Q,C:, M,P,, whc bcgan thc stntc-
ment of tho ~5ows of th6 United ~h~dom Government.
Thc ncxt he~~sing uf the Court r+rillbc held on J-me 14that
10 ,?O,n.m.
Thc Hcgue, June 12th,1954.
Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States) - Judgment