DISSENlrING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS
[Translation]
As the Court's Order in the case of the Federal Republicof Germanyv.
Icelandis virtually a replica of the Order of the same date in UnitedKing-
dom v. Iceland,1 feel it would be gratuitous for me to repeat the reasons,
for my dissent, which are the same.
1would only add thiat,inthe case of the Federal Republic of Germany,
315 FISHERIES JURISDICTION(ORDER 12VI173)
indication of provisional measures, the rights which may subsequently be
adjudged by the Court to belong respectivelyto the Parties;
Accordingly,
by 11votes to 3,
Confirms that the provisional measures indicated in operative para-
graph (1) of the Order of 17August 1972should, subject to the power of
revocation or modification conferred on the Court by paragraph 7 of
Article 61 of the 1946Rules, remain operative until the Court has given
finaljudgment in the case.
Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :
1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.
Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :
Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :
1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.
Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :
Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :
1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.
Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :
Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :
1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.
Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO
1am unable to concur in the Order of the Court, and therefore I voted
against its adoption.
In my view, the Court should not have indicated measures of protec-
tion. Notwithstanding contrary opinion, the special features of this case
36 FISHERIES JURlSVlCTlON(ORVER17 VI11 72)
case,it shall, at an appropriate time before 15 August 1973, review
the matter at the request of either Party in order to decide whether the
foregoing measures shall continue or need to be modified or revoked.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN
[Translation]
DISSEN'TING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS
[Translation]