Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASE0:l?THEMONETARY GOLDREMOVED FROM ROMEIN 1943
Judgmentof15June 1954
TheMonetaryGoldCasewasbroughtbefoiretheCourtby The Judgmentbeganby reciting thefacts. The originof
an Applicatior~of the Italian Republicagainst the French the presentcasewastobe foundinPartI11ofthe Agreement
Republic,theUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthern on Reparationfrom Germany (Paris, January 14th, 1946).
Ireland andtheUnitedStatesofAmerica. which provided that themonetarv gold fourrd inGermany
should-be pooledfor distributionBiong the countriesenti-
The Court had been requestedto determine ce~zainlegal tledtoreceive ashareofit. France,theUnitetlKingdomand
questionsupon whichdependedthe deliverytoItalyorto the the UnitedStatesweresignatoriesofthe Agreement,aswell
UnitedKingdomofa quantityofmonetarygoldremovedby as Albania and other States; Italy adhered subsequentlyto
theGermansfromRomein 1943,recoveredinGermanyand Part111T. heimplementationoftheprovisionsofPartI11hav-
foundtobelongtoAlbania.TheUnitedKingdompointedout ing beenentrustedtothe GovernmentsofFrance,the United
thattheCourthadfoundthatA.llbaniwa asunderanobligation Kingdom and the United States, these three Governments
to paycompensationto theUnitedKingdomforthe damage appointedaTripartiteCommission toassisttheminthis mat-
causedby the explosionsin the CorfuChannelin 1946and ter. In respectof a quantityof gold removed from Rome in
thatthedamagesduetotheUnitedKingdomhadneverbeen 1943,whichbelongedto the National Bankof Albania, the
paid. Foritspart, Italycontentled,inthe firstplace, that sTripartiteCommission,confrontedby competingclaimsof
had a claim againstAlbania itrisingout of the measuresof Albania and Italy,was unableto give a decision. The three
confiscationallegedly takentthe AlbanianGovernmentin Governmentsthen agreedto submitthequestionto an arbi-
priorityoverthatofthe United Kingdom.er claim should have trator (WashingtonAgreementof April25th, 1951).At the
sametime,theydeclared (WashingtonStatementofthesame
The ItalianGovernment,re:lyingon the Statement signed date)thatifthefindingofthearbitratorshouldbeinfavourof
at Washingtonon April 25th, 1951by the Governmentsof Albania, they would be confronted by another problem,
France,theUnited Kingdomimdthe UnitedStates,referred sincethe gold wasclaimedbyItaly andby the United King-
thesetwoquestionstothe Couit.Butafterfilinghei:Applica- domfor reasonsnot coveredby Part111of the Paris Agree-
tion, Italyfelt somedoubtastothejurisdicticof theCourt ment;and theydecided thatthe gold would k deliveredto
andrequestedtheCourttoadjudicateonthe qnestionofjuris- theUnitedKingdominpartialsatisfactionoftheJudgmentof
dictionasa preliminary issue. thecourl:ofDecember15th,1949,inthe CorfuChannelcase
Itisuponthequestionofjurisdiction thattheCourtadjudi- unlesswithinacertaintime-limit fromthedateof thearbitra-
cated in its Judgment.TheClc~urftound first, unanimously, tor'sOpinion,eitherAlbania appliedtotheCourtrequesting
that in the absenceof the consent of Albania, it was not itto adjudicateonherrights,orItaly madeanApplicationto
authorizedto adjudicateuponItaly's claimagainst Albania; the Court for the determination of the questions, first,
and, secondly,bythirteenvott:stoone,that thepriority issuewhetherbyreasonofanyrightswhichsheclaimedtopossess
could only arise if the first question had been decided inas a resilltof the Albanianlaw of January 13th. 1945, or
favourof Italy. under the provisionsof the Italian Peace Treaty, the gold
Judge Levi Carneiro appended to the Judgment of the shouldbedeliveredtoherratherthantoAlbania,andsecond,
Court a statementof his dissczntiopinion(:onthe second whether the Italianclaimshouldor shouldnot have priority
question);two other Memben;of the Court president, Sir over the claimof the United Kingdom,if this issue should
ArnoldMcNair,andJudgeRead), whilevotinginfavourof arise.
the decision, appended to the Judgment a declarationand Thus, within the prescribed time-limit, Italy made an
individual opinion respectively. Applicationto the Court which was comm~lnicatedin the
Continued on next pagecustomary manner to States entitledto appear before the jurisdictiono-exttmsivewiththetaskentrustedtotheCourt?
Courtandalsotransmitted tothe Albanian Government.
In this connection the Courtnotedthat it was notmerely
Time-limitsfor thefilingof thepleadingswere then fixed calleduponto say whetherthe gold shouldbe deliveredto
by the Court.However, insteadof presentingits Memorial ItalyortotheUnited Kingdomi:t wasrequested todetermine
on the merits, theItalian Governmentque:stionedthejuris- problemdepended. Thefirstsubmissionin the Applicatione
dictionoftheCourttoadjudicateuponthefirstquestionrelat- centred arounda claimby Italyagainst Albania,a claimto
ing to the validityof the Italian claimagainst Albania. The indemnificationforanalleged wrong. Italy believetdhat she
problem thusraised,theItalianGovernmentcontendedthat the possesseda right againstAlbaniafor the dress of aninter-
the Court didnothavea sufficient basisfor adjudicationon nationalwrongwhiich,accordingto Italy,Albaniahadcom-
the groundthatthe proceedingscontemplatedby theWash- mittedagainsther.Inorder, therefore,todeterminewhether
ingtonStatementwereinrealitydirectedagainstAlbania and Italy was entitledibreceive thegold, it was necessaryto
thatAlbaniawasnotaPartytothesuit.AsregardstheUnited determinewhether Albaniahadcommittedanyinternational
Kingdom,it sawinthe challengeto the Court's jurisdiction wrongagainstItaly,a,nd whethershewasunderanobligation
madeby Italy a groundfor questioning thevalidityof the topaycompensation toher;and, if so, todeterminealso the
Applicationwhich, in the submissionof the UnitedKing- amountofcompenr;ation.Inorderto decide suchquestions,
dom, shouldberegarded asnotconformingto theWashing- it was necessaryto determinewhether the Albanianlaw of
ton Statementor as invalidandvoid, or as withdrawn.The January13th,1945wascontraryto internationallaw.Inthe
two otherrespondentGovernments, Francseand the United determinationofthesequestions,whichrelated to the lawful
States,didnotdepositformal Submissions. orilnlawfulcharacterof certain actionsof Albaniavis-d-vis
Afterthusrecitingthefacts,theCourtdealtwiththeviews Italy,onlytwoStatt:~,ItalyandAlbania,weredirectlyinter-
of bothsides,beginning with the Submissionosf theUnited ested.
Kingdom which have justbeen summarimi. Indeed,it was Togointothe meritsofsuchquestionswouldbetodecide
unusualthatanapplicantStateshouldchallengethejurisdic- adisputebetweenItaly and Albania-which thC eourtcould
tion of the Court, but regard must be hadfor the circum- notdowithouttheconsentof Albania.Ifthe Court didso, it
stancesof the case: itwastheWashingtonStatement,ema- would runcountertoa well-establishedprincipleofinterna-
nating fromthethreeGovernments,thaf tonnulatedtheoffer tionallawembodiedintheCourt'sStatute,namely,thatthe
of jurisdiction acceptedby Italy and pre-determined the Courtcan onlyexercisejurisdictionoveraStatewithitscon-
subject-matterof the suit;anditwas after;takingthe initial sent.
stepthatItalyfeltsomedoubtandfiledaPreliminary Objec- IthasbeencontendedthatAlbania mighthave intervened,
tion on the basisof Article62 of the Rulesof Court. This since Article62 of .theStatute givesto a thirdState, which
Articledidnotpreclude theraising ofapreliminaryobjection considersthat ithasminterestofalegalnaturewhichmaybe
by an applicantin suchcircumstances.By this Objection, affectedbythe decisioninthecase,therighttodoso;thatthe
Italy'sacceptanceofjurisdictionofthe Courthas not become Statute didnot prevent proceedingsfrom continuing, even
less completeor lesspositivethan wascontemplatedin the when a third State which wouldbe entitled to intervene
WashingtonStatement.To request the Court to settle the refrainedfrom doingso;andthat consequentlythe fact that
problem of jurisdictionwas not tantamountto askingthe Albaniahad abstained fromdoing so should not makeit
Courtnotto determinethequestions setoutin the Applica- impossibleforthe Courttogivejudgment.Butinthepresent
tion underany circumstances. TheApplicistionwas a real case,Albania's legal interess ould notonlybeaffectedby
one;and it remained reaul nlessit waswithclrawn;buitt had a decision;theywo~lldconstitutethe verysubject-matterof
notbeenwithdrawn.Finally, the Application,ifnot invalid the decision. Therefore, the Statutcould not beregarded,
whenitwasfiled,couldnothavebecomeinvalidbyreasonof even by implication,as authorizing thatproceedingscould
thepresentationofthe objectiontothejurisdiction. becontinuedintheabsenceofAlbania.
Havingthus foundthat it hadbeen validly seisedby the TheCourtfoundthat,althoughItalyandthethreerespon-
Application and thatthat Application stililsubsisted, the dent Stateshad corlferredjurisdiction upon the Court, it
Courtproceeded toconsiderationof theItaliianObjectionto couldnotexercise thisjurisdictionto adjudicateon the first
the jurisdictionin order to decide whetheror not itcould claim submittedby Italy. As for the secondclaim, which
adjudicateuponthemeritsofthequestionssubmitted to itby relates to theriorilybetween theclaims of Italy andthe
theApplication.TheCourtnotedthat, inrespectoftherela- United Kingdom,it would only arise when it had been
tionsbetweenthe threeGovernments andItaly,theApplica- decidedthat, asbetweenItaly andAlbania, thegoldshould
tionwasinconformitywiththeoffermadeintheWashington goto Italy.Thisclairnwasconsequentlydependentuponthe
Statement,bothas regardsthesubject-matterof thesuitand first claimin the Application. TheCourtaccordinglyfound
the Partiesto it; theCourt thereforehadjurisdictionto deal that inasmuchas it couldnot adjudicateon the firstItalian
withthequestionssubmittedintheApplication.Butwasthis claim,it shouldrefrainfromexaminingthe second.
Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1954