The Court finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to NATO, has breached its obligation under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2011/37
5 December 2011

The Court finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia to NATO, has breached its obligation under Article 11,
paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995

THE HAGUE, 5December2011. The International Court of Justice(ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today de livered its Judgment in the case concerning

Application of the Interim Accord of 13Se ptember1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia v. Greece).

In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court

(1) finds, by fourteen votes to two, that it has jurisdic tion to entertain the Application filed by the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 17November2008 and that this Application is
admissible;

(2) finds, by fifteen votes to one, that the Hellenic Republic, by objecting to the admission of the

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to NATO, has breached its obligation under
Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995;

(3) rejects, by fifteen votes to one, all other submissions made by the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia.

I. Factual background of the case

The Court recalls that, on 17 November 2008, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(hereinafter the “Applicant”) filed in the Regi stry of the Court an Application instituting

proceedings against the Hellenic Republic (hereina fter the “Respondent”) in respect of a dispute
concerning the interpretation and implementation of the Interim Accord of 13September1995
(hereinafter the “Interim Accord”). It further r ecalls that the Applicant invoked as a basis for the
Court’s jurisdiction Article21, paragraph2, of the Interim Accord, which states that the Parties

may submit to the Court any dispute which arises between them concerning the interpretation or
implementation of that Accord, except for the differe nce referred to in Article5, paragraph1, of
that instrument.

The Court observes that the Applicant’s NATO candidacy was considered at the Bucharest

Summit on 2 and 3 April 2008, but that the Applicant was not invited to begin talks on accession to
the organization. It notes that the Applicant is seeking, in particular, to establish that the
Respondent objected to its admission to NATO and th erefore violated Article11, paragraph1, of - 2 -

the Interim Accord. The Court states that it is clear from the text of the first clause of that
provision that the Respondent agrees not to object to the Applicant’s admission to international or

regional organizations of which the Respondent is a member. It further observes that, under the
second clause of that provision, the Respondent nevertheless reserves the right to object to such
admission if and to the extent the Applicant is to be referred to in those organizations differently
than in paragraph2 of United Nations Security Council resolution817(1993). That paragraph

recommends that the Applicant be admitted to membership in the United Nations, being
“provisionally referred to for all purposes with in the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the di fference that has arisen over the name of the
State”.

II. Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the Application

The Court notes that the Respondent claims that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
dispute and that the Application is inadmissible for several reasons. Firstly, the Respondent
submits that the dispute concerns the difference over the name of the Applicant. Secondly, it
alleges that the dispute concerns conduct attributable to NATO and its member States, which is not

subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Thirdly, it claims that the Court’s Judgment in the present case
would be incapable of effective application because it could not effect the Applicant’s admission to
NATO. Fourthly, it submits that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court would interfere with
ongoing diplomatic negotiations concerning the difference over the name.

The Court decides not to uphold the objections raised by the Respondent; it finds that it has
jurisdiction over the dispute and that the Application is admissible.

III. Whether the Respondent failed to comply with the obligation under Article11,
paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord

In the view of the Court, the evidence su bmitted to it demonstrates that, at the Bucharest

Summit, in contravention of Article11, paragr aph1, of the Interim Accord, the Respondent
manifested its objection to the Applicant’s admiss ion to NATO, citing the fact that the difference
regarding the Applicant’s name remained unresolved. The Court finds that the Respondent’s

objection does not fall within the exception contained in the second clause of Article11,
paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord, because that clause does not permit the Respondent to object to
the Applicant’s admission to an organization based on the prospect that the Applicant is to refer to
itself in such organization with its constitutional name.

IV. Additional justifications invoked by the Respondent

The Court notes that, as an alternative to its main argument, the Respondent claims that any

objection to the Applicant’s admission to NATO could be justified (1)under the doctrine of
exceptio non adimpleti contractus , (2)as a response to a breach of a treaty, or (3)as a
countermeasure under the law of State responsibilit y. The Court observes that the Respondent
advances certain minimum conditions common to its arguments relating to these three

justifications, namely that the Applicant breached provisions of the Interim Accord and that the
Respondent’s objection to the Applicant’s admissi on to NATO was made in response to those
breaches. In the light of the evidence before it, the Court concludes that the Respondent has

established only one such breach, namely the use by the Applicant in 2004 of the symbol
prohibited by Article7, paragraph2, which it discontinued during that same year. The Court
considers that the Respondent has failed to establish that it objected to the Applicant’s admission to
NATO in response to a violation of that provision. Accordingly, it concludes that the justifications

submitted by the Respondent fail. - 3 -

V. Remedies

In the light of the above, the Court determines that its finding that the Respondent has
violated its obligation to the Applicant under Article11, paragraph1, of the Interim Accord
constitutes appropriate satisfaction.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Owada; Vice-President Tomka;
JudgeKoroma, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Se púlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov,

CançadoTrindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue; Judges ad hoc Roucounas, Vukas;
Registrar Couvreur.

JudgeSimma appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; JudgeBennouna

appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Xue appends a dissenting opinion to the
Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc Roucounas appends a dissenting opi nion to the Judgment of
the Court; Judge ad hoc Vukas appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court.

*

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No.2011/6”. This press
release, the summary, and the full text of th e Judgment can be found on the Court’s website
(www.icj-cij.org), under the heading “Cases”.

___________

Information Department:

Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)

Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)