Order of 5 May 1950

Document Number
008-19500505-ORD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

COUR INTERNATIONDEJUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARXETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNA4NCES

INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITE SE PAIX

CONCLUSAVEC LA BULGARIE,
LA HONGRIE ET LA ROUMANIE

ORDONNANCE DU 5 MAI 1950

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS ANDRDERS

INTERPRETATION OF PEACETfiEATIES
WITH BULGARIA, HUNC "lRY
AND ROIVIANIA

ORDEROF MAY Sth,1950 La présente ordonnance doit êtrecitée conime suit
«Interprétationdes Traitésde paix,
Ordonnancedu 5 mai 1950:
C. I. J.Recueil 1950p.121,1)

This Order should be cited as fo:lows

"lnterpretation of Peace Treaties, Order of May 5th, 1950:
I.CJ. Reports 195p.IZI."

Na de vente:
1Sdes n-b= 39 1 INTERNATIONAL COUK'I'OF JUSTICE

1950
May 5th
YEAR 1950 General Li:t
No. 8

Ordermade on May sth, 1950

INTERPRETATION OF PEACETREATlES

WITH BULGARIA, HLJNGARY

AND ROMANIA

The President of the International Court of Justice,

Having regard to Articles48, 63, 66 and 68 of the Statute,
Having regard to Article 37 of the Rules of Court,

Makes the following Orde:

Whereas, on the 22nd October, 1949, the General Assembly of
the United Nations adopted a Resolution by theterms of which
it requested the Court for an Advisory Opinion on the following
questions:
"1. Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary
and Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and
Associated Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace
on the other, conceming the implementation of Article
of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary and Article 3
of the Treaty with Romania, disclose disputes subject
to the provisions for the settlement of disputes con-
tained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria,
Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and
Article38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania?"

In the event of an affirmative reply to Question:1
"II. Are the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
obligated to carry out the provisions of the Articles referred to in Question 1, including the provisions for
the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty
Commissions ?"

111the event of an affirmative reply to Question II and if within
thirty days from the date when the Court delivers its opinion,
the Governments concemed have not notified the Secretary-
General that they have appointed their representatives to the
Treaty Commissions, and the Secretary-General has so advised
the International Court of Justice :

"III. If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to
appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is
the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized
to appoint the third member of the Commission upon
the request of the other party to a dispute according
to the provisions of the respective Treaties ?"

In the event of an affirmative reply to Question III :

"IV. Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative
of one party and a third member appointed by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a
Commission, within the meaning of the relevant Treaty
articles, competent to make a definitive and binding
decision in settlement of a dispute ?"

Whereas, in the Advisory Opinion which it delivered on
March 3oth, 1950,the Court gave an affirmative reply to Questions 1
and II mentioned above ;
Whereas, by a telegram received in the Registry of the Court on

May znd, 1950, the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations
advised that within thirty days from the date when the Court
delivered its Opinion, he had not been notified by the Government
of Bulgaria, the Government of Hungary or the Government of
Romania that any of these Governments had appointed its repre-
sentative to the Treaty Commissions ;

Whereas, on the 7th November, 1949,the Registrar gave notice,
on the one hand, in pursuance of paragraph 2 of Article 66,of the
Statute, to States that signed the Peace Treaties concerned and
are entitled to appear before the Court, and, on the other hand, in
pursuance of paragraph I of Article 63, and of Article 68 of the
Statute, to the other signatory States of these Peace Treaties, that
the Court was prepared to receive written statements relating to
the question : 1. Appoints Monday, June 5th, 1950, as the date of expiry of
the time-limit within which the aforesaid States may file written
statements relating ts Questions III and IV of the Resolution
quoted above.
2. Reserves the rest of the procedure for further decision.

Done in French and English, the French text being authorita-
tive, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this fifth day of May, onc

thousand nine hundred and fifty.

(Signed) BASDEVANT,

President.

(Signed) GARNIER-COIGNET,
Deputy-Registrar.

Bilingual Content

COUR INTERNATIONDEJUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARXETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNA4NCES

INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITE SE PAIX

CONCLUSAVEC LA BULGARIE,
LA HONGRIE ET LA ROUMANIE

ORDONNANCE DU 5 MAI 1950

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS ANDRDERS

INTERPRETATION OF PEACETfiEATIES
WITH BULGARIA, HUNC "lRY
AND ROIVIANIA

ORDEROF MAY Sth,1950 La présente ordonnance doit êtrecitée conime suit
«Interprétationdes Traitésde paix,
Ordonnancedu 5 mai 1950:
C. I. J.Recueil 1950p.121,1)

This Order should be cited as fo:lows

"lnterpretation of Peace Treaties, Order of May 5th, 1950:
I.CJ. Reports 195p.IZI."

Na de vente:
1Sdes n-b= 39 1 COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

1950
Le5 mai
Rôlno 8néral

Ordonnancerendue le 5 mai 1950

INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITESDE FAIX

CONCLUSAVEC LA BULGARIE,

LA HONGRE ET LA ROU.MANIE

Le Président de la Cour internationale dc Justice,
Vu les articles 463, 6Get68 du Statut,

Vu l'articl37 du Règlement,

Rend l'ordonnance szlivanfe:
Considérantqu'à la date 22 octobre 1949,l'Assembléegénérale
des Nations Unies a adopté une résolutioil aux ter mes de laquelle
elle demande à la Cour un avis consultatif sur les questions sui-
vantrç :

1. Ressort-il de la correspondance diplomatique échangée
entre la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie, d'une
part, et certaines Puissances alliéeset associéessigna-
tairesdes traités de paix, d'autre part, touchant
l'application de l'article z des traités avec la Bulgarie
et la 1-Iongrieet de l'article 3 du traité avec la Rou-
manie, qu'il existe des différends pour lesquels l'arti-
cle 36 du traité de paix avecla Bulgarie, l'article 40 du
trait6 de paix avec la Hongrie et l'a38idu traité
de paix avec la Roumanie prévoient une procédure
de règlement »
Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative :

PT. Les Gouvernements de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie et
de la Roumanie sont-ils tenus d'exécuter les clauses INTERNATIONAL COUK'I'OF JUSTICE

1950
May 5th
YEAR 1950 General Li:t
No. 8

Ordermade on May sth, 1950

INTERPRETATION OF PEACETREATlES

WITH BULGARIA, HLJNGARY

AND ROMANIA

The President of the International Court of Justice,

Having regard to Articles48, 63, 66 and 68 of the Statute,
Having regard to Article 37 of the Rules of Court,

Makes the following Orde:

Whereas, on the 22nd October, 1949, the General Assembly of
the United Nations adopted a Resolution by theterms of which
it requested the Court for an Advisory Opinion on the following
questions:
"1. Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary
and Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and
Associated Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace
on the other, conceming the implementation of Article
of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary and Article 3
of the Treaty with Romania, disclose disputes subject
to the provisions for the settlement of disputes con-
tained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria,
Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and
Article38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania?"

In the event of an affirmative reply to Question:1
"II. Are the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
obligated to carry out the provisions of the Articles des articles mentionnés à la question 1, notamment
celles qui concernent la désignation de leurs repré-
sentants aux commissions prévues par les traités ? ))

Si la réponse à la question II est affirmative, et si, dans les
trente jours de la date où la Cour aura rendu son avis, les

Gouvernements intéressés n'ont pas fait connaître au Secré-
taire général qu'ils ont désigné leurs représentants aux
commissions prévues par les traités, et si le Secrétaire
général en ainforméla Cour internationale de Justice :

(III. Le Secrétaire général desNations Unies est-il autorisé,
si l'une des parties ne désignepas de représentant à
une commission prévue par les traités de paix avec
la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie, alors qu'elle
est tenue d'en désignerun, à désigner letiers membre
de la commission sur la demande de l'autre partie
au différend, conformément aux dispositions des
traités en cause ? ))

Si la réponse à la question III est affirmative :
« IV. Une commission prévue par les traitésqui serait compo-

sée d'un représentant de l'une des parties et d'un
tiers membre désignépar le Secrétaire général des
Nations Unies serait-elle considérée comme com-
mission au sens des articles pertinents des traites
et qualifiée pour prendre des décisions définitiveset
obligatoires dans le règlement d'un différend? ))

Considérant que, dans l'avis consultatif par elle rendu à la date
du 30 mars 1950, la Cour a répondu affirmativement aux deux

premières questions ci-dessus rappelées ;
Considérantque, par un télégramme reçuau Greffe de la Cour le
2 mai 1950, le Secrétaire général en exercicedes Nations Unies a
fait savoir que, dans les trente jours à compter de la date à laquelle
la Cour a rendu l'avis consultatif précité, il n'avait pas étéavisé
par le Gouvernement de la Bulgarie, le Gouvernement de la Hongrie
ou le Gouvernement de la Roumanie qu'aucun de ces gouverne-
ments ait désignéson représentant aux commissions prévues par
lei traités ;

Cr,nsidérant qu'à la date du 7 novembre 1949, le Greffier avait
fait connaître, d'une part, aux Etats signataires des traités de
paix précitéset admis à ester en justice devant la Cour, conformé-
ment à !'article 66, paragraphe 2, du Statut, et, d'autre part, aux
autres Etats signataires desdits traités, en application des arti-
cles 63, paragraphe 1, et 68 du Statut, que la Cour serait disposée
à recevoir d'eux des exposés écrits: referred to in Question 1, including the provisions for
the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty
Commissions ?"

111the event of an affirmative reply to Question II and if within
thirty days from the date when the Court delivers its opinion,
the Governments concemed have not notified the Secretary-
General that they have appointed their representatives to the
Treaty Commissions, and the Secretary-General has so advised
the International Court of Justice :

"III. If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to
appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is
the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized
to appoint the third member of the Commission upon
the request of the other party to a dispute according
to the provisions of the respective Treaties ?"

In the event of an affirmative reply to Question III :

"IV. Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative
of one party and a third member appointed by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a
Commission, within the meaning of the relevant Treaty
articles, competent to make a definitive and binding
decision in settlement of a dispute ?"

Whereas, in the Advisory Opinion which it delivered on
March 3oth, 1950,the Court gave an affirmative reply to Questions 1
and II mentioned above ;
Whereas, by a telegram received in the Registry of the Court on

May znd, 1950, the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations
advised that within thirty days from the date when the Court
delivered its Opinion, he had not been notified by the Government
of Bulgaria, the Government of Hungary or the Government of
Romania that any of these Governments had appointed its repre-
sentative to the Treaty Commissions ;

Whereas, on the 7th November, 1949,the Registrar gave notice,
on the one hand, in pursuance of paragraph 2 of Article 66,of the
Statute, to States that signed the Peace Treaties concerned and
are entitled to appear before the Court, and, on the other hand, in
pursuance of paragraph I of Article 63, and of Article 68 of the
Statute, to the other signatory States of these Peace Treaties, that
the Court was prepared to receive written statements relating to
the question : I. Décidede fixer au lundi 5 juin 1950 l'expiration du délai
dans lequel lesdits États pourraient présenter des exposésécrits
relatifs aux questions III et IV de la résolution précitée.

2. Réservela suite de la procédure.

Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au
Palais de la Paix à La Haye, le cinq mai mil neuf cent cinquante.

Le Président de la Cour,
(Signé)BASDEVANT.

Le Greffier adjoint de la Cour,
(Signk) GARNIER-COIGNET. 1. Appoints Monday, June 5th, 1950, as the date of expiry of
the time-limit within which the aforesaid States may file written
statements relating ts Questions III and IV of the Resolution
quoted above.
2. Reserves the rest of the procedure for further decision.

Done in French and English, the French text being authorita-
tive, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this fifth day of May, onc

thousand nine hundred and fifty.

(Signed) BASDEVANT,

President.

(Signed) GARNIER-COIGNET,
Deputy-Registrar.

ICJ document subtitle

Fixing of time-limit: Writte Statements (Second Phase)

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Order of 5 May 1950

Links