Counter-claims
Code
10
Latest Developments
Merits, including counter-claims of Bolivia
Available in:
1 December 2022
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court delivers its Judgment on the merits of the case, including the counter-claims of Bolivia
Available in:
11 November 2022
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Thursday 1 December 2022 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/14
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 14 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
14 April 2022
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - Conclusion of the public hearings - The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/13
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 13 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/12
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Monday 11 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/11
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 8 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/10
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 7 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/9
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 6 April 2022, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/8
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 5 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/7
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Monday 4 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2022/6
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 1 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Available in:
9 March 2022
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court to hold public hearings from Friday 1 to Thursday 14 April 2022
Available in:
21 June 2019
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court authorizes the submission by the Republic of Chile of an additional pleading relating solely to the counter-claims of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Fixing of time-limit: additional pleading relating solely to the counter-claims
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
15 May 2019
Available in:
15 February 2019
Available in:
30 November 2018
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court directs the submission of a Reply by Chile and a Rejoinder by Bolivia limited to the Respondent’s counter-claims
Available in:
3 September 2018
Available in:
5 June 2018
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - Extension of the time-limit for the filing of Bolivia’s Counter-Memorial
Available in:
3 July 2017
Available in:
14 July 2016
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
6 June 2016
Chile institutes proceedings against Bolivia with regard to a dispute concerning the status and use of the waters of the Silala
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 18 November 2010, the Republic of Costa Rica filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Nicaragua in respect of an alleged “incursion into, occupation of and use by Nicaragua’s Army of Costa Rican territory as well as [alleged] breaches of Nicaragua’s obligations towards Costa Rica”, namely the principle of territorial integrity and the prohibition of the threat or use of force.
In its Application, Costa Rica contended that Nicaragua had, in two separate incidents, occupied the territory of Costa Rica in connection with the construction of a canal from the San Juan River to Laguna los Portillos (also known as “Harbour Head Lagoon”), and carried out certain related works of dredging on the San Juan River. According to Costa Rica, the dredging and the construction of that canal would seriously affect the flow of water to the Colorado River of Costa Rica, and would cause further damage to Costa Rican territory, including the wetlands and national wildlife protected areas located in the region. This case was entered in the General List of the Court under the title Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (hereinafter the “Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case”).
On 18 November 2010, Costa Rica also filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures aimed at protecting its “right to sovereignty, to territorial integrity and to non-interference with its rights over the San Juan River, its lands, its environmentally protected areas, as well as the integrity and flow of the Colorado River”. By its Request, Costa Rica sought in particular to obtain the withdrawal of all Nicaraguan troops from the territory in dispute, the immediate cessation of the construction of the canal and the suspension of the dredging of the Colorado River. By an Order indicating provisional measures dated 8 March 2011, the Court asked the Parties to refrain from sending to, or maintaining in, the disputed territory any personnel, whether civilian, police or security. However, it did authorize Costa Rica to dispatch to the disputed territory, subject to certain conditions, civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment. Finally, it asked the Parties to refrain from aggravating or extending the dispute.
On 22 December 2011, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica “for violations of Nicaraguan sovereignty and major environmental damages to its territory”. In its Application, Nicaragua contended that Costa Rica was carrying out major construction works along most of the border area between the two countries with grave environmental consequences. This case was entered in the General List of the Court under the title Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) (hereinafter the “Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case”).
On 6 August 2012, Nicaragua filed its Counter-Memorial in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, in which it submitted four counter-claims.
In a letter dated 19 December 2012, submitted on the filing of Nicaragua’s Memorial in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, Nicaragua requested the Court to join the proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica cases.
By two Orders dated 17 April 2013, the Court, taking account of the circumstances and in conformity with the principle of the sound administration of justice and with the need for judicial economy, decided to join the proceedings in the two cases.
By an Order dated 18 April 2013, the Court ruled that the subject‑matter of the first counter‑claim presented by Nicaragua in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case (a claim relating to the damage that might result from the construction of the aforementioned road by Costa Rica) was identical in substance to its principal claim in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case and that, as a result of the joinder of the proceedings, there was no need for it to adjudicate on the admissibility of that counter‑claim as such. The Court found the second and third counter‑claims inadmissible, since there was no direct connection between those claims, which related to the question of sovereignty over the Bay of San Juan del Norte and Nicaragua’s right to navigation on the Colorado River, respectively, and the principal claims of Costa Rica. Finally, the Court found that there was no need for it to entertain the fourth counter-claim, relating to the implementation of the provisional measures already indicated by the Court, since the Parties were free to take up that question in the further course of the proceedings.
On 23 May 2013, Costa Rica presented the Court with a request for the urgent modification of its Order of 8 March 2011. In its Order of 16 July 2013, the Court considered that the change in the situation that had occurred did not justify a modification of its earlier Order. Furthermore, it reaffirmed the measures indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011, in particular the requirement that the Parties “shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”.
On 24 September 2013, Costa Rica filed a Request for the indication of new provisional measures in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case. This Request followed the construction by Nicaragua of two new channels (caños) in the northern part of the disputed territory, the larger of the two being that to the east (“the eastern caño”). In its Order of 22 November 2013, the Court decided not only to reaffirm the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011 (see above), but also to indicate new measures. The Court thus directed that Nicaragua must refrain from any dredging or other activities in the disputed territory, and, in particular, refrain from work of any kind on the two new caños, and must also fill the trench on the beach north of the eastern caño. The Court further directed that, except as needed for implementing this obligation, Nicaragua must cause the removal from the disputed territory of all personnel, whether civilian, police or security, and prevent any such personnel from entering the disputed territory; it must likewise cause the removal from and prevent the entrance into the disputed territory of any private persons under its jurisdiction or control. The Court further stated that, subject to certain conditions, Costa Rica might take appropriate measures related to the two new caños.
For its part, on 11 October 2013, Nicaragua filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, stating that it was seeking to protect certain rights which were being prejudiced by the road construction works carried out by Costa Rica (see above), in particular the transboundary movement of sediments and other resultant debris. After holding hearings on that Request at the beginning of November 2013, the Court decided, in an Order dated 13 December 2013, that the circumstances, as they now presented themselves to the Court, were not such as to require the exercise of its power to indicate provisional measures.
Public hearings in the joined cases were held in April 2015, and the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits on 16 December 2015. Regarding the first case, the Court found, inter alia, that Costa Rica had sovereignty over the disputed territory lying in the northern part of Isla Portillos. It therefore considered that the activities carried out by Nicaragua in the disputed territory since 2010, including the excavation of three caños and the establishment of a military presence in parts of that territory, were in breach of Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty and Nicaragua’s obligations under the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 indicating provisional measures. In its Judgment, the Court ruled that Nicaragua had an obligation to compensate Costa Rica for the material damages caused by its unlawful activities and that, failing an agreement on the matter between the Parties within 12 months, the Court would settle this question in a subsequent procedure.
In the same Judgment, regarding the second case, the Court found that the construction of the road by Costa Rica carried a risk of significant transboundary harm and that Costa Rica therefore had an obligation under general international law to carry out an environmental impact assessment. However, since Costa Rica had not complied with that obligation, the Court found that there was no need for it to determine whether Costa Rica had a duty to notify and consult with Nicaragua. Turning to the alleged breaches of substantive obligations, beginning with the obligation to exercise due diligence to avoid causing significant transboundary harm, the Court concluded that Nicaragua had not proved that the construction of the road caused significant transboundary harm, and it therefore dismissed Nicaragua’s claims on this point. Turning to the reparation requested by Nicaragua, the Court concluded that a declaration of wrongful conduct in respect of Costa Rica’s violation of the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment was the appropriate measure of satisfaction for Nicaragua.
By a letter dated 16 January 2017, Costa Rica, referring to the decision rendered in the first case (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), requested the Court to settle the question of the compensation due to Costa Rica for the material damages caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in the border area. Following the conclusion of two rounds of written pleadings, the Court began its deliberation and gave its ruling in a Judgment rendered on 2 February 2018.
In that Judgment, the Court took the view that damage to the environment, in particular the consequent impairment or loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services, and the cost of the restoration of the damaged environment, was compensable under international law. Before assigning a monetary value to the damage to the environmental goods and services caused by Nicaragua’s wrongful activities, the Court determined the existence and extent of that damage, and whether there existed a direct and certain causal link between the damage and Nicaragua’s activities. Following its valuation of the damage caused to environmental goods and services, the Court awarded Costa Rica the sum of US$120,000 for the impairment or loss of the environmental goods and services of the affected area, and the sum of US$2,708.39 for restoration measures in respect of the wetland. In addition to the compensation for environmental damage, the Court awarded Costa Rica total compensation in the amount of US$236,032.16 for costs and expenses incurred as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in the northern part of Isla Portillos, as well as US$20,150.04 in pre‑judgment interest on those costs and expenses. The Court concluded that the total amount of compensation to be awarded to Costa Rica was US$378,890.59, to be paid by Nicaragua by 2 April 2018. In a letter dated 22 March 2018, Nicaragua informed the Registry of the Court that, on 8 March 2018, it had transferred to Costa Rica the total amount of compensation awarded to it.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
18 November 2010
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
5 December 2011
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
6 August 2012
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
30 November 2012
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
30 January 2013
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
21 May 2013
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
14 June 2013
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
20 June 2013
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
24 September 2013
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
3 April 2017
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Verbatim record 2011/1
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 January 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/2
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 January 2011, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/3
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 12 January 2011, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/4
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 13 January 2011, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2013/24
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Monday 14 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2013/25
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 15 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2013/26
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 16 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2013/27
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 17 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/2
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 14 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/3
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 14 April 2015, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/4
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 15 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/5
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 16 April 2015, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/6
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 17 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/7
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 17 April 2015, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/14
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 28 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2015/15
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 29 April 2015, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
Available in:
Other documents
18 January 2011
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
20 January 2011
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Orders
Provisional measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Joinder of proceedings
Available in:
Counter-claims
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Requests for the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 indicating provisional measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Request presented by Costa Rica for the Indication of new Provisional Measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: written pleadings on the question of compensation
Available in:
Judgments
Merit
Available in:
Compensation owed by the Republic of Nicaragua to the Republic of Costa Rica
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
19 November 2010
Costa Rica institutes proceedings against Nicaragua and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Available in:
7 December 2010
Proceedings instituted by the Republic of Costa Rica against the Republic of Nicaragua - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to hold public hearings from Tuesday 11 to Thursday 13 January 2011
Available in:
13 January 2011
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Conclusion of the public hearings on Costa Rica's Request for the indication of provisional measures
Available in:
23 February 2011
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to deliver its Order on Tuesday 8 March 2011 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
8 March 2011
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court requests the Parties to refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the disputed territory, including the caño, any personnel, whether civilian, police or security; it authorizes Costa Rica, in certain specific circumstances, to dispatch civilian personnel there charged with the protection of the environment; and it calls on the Parties not to aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve
Available in:
14 April 2011
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
23 April 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - The Court joins the proceedings in the two cases
Available in:
1 May 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - The Court rules on the counter-claims submitted by Nicaragua: it finds that the first claim is without object, that the second and third claims are inadmissible and that there is no need for it to entertain the fourth claim
Available in:
25 July 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - The Court finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the Court, are not such as to require the exercise of its power to modify the measures indicated in the Order of 8 March 2011 and reaffirms those measures
Available in:
25 September 2013
Costa Rica requests the Court to indicate new provisional measures in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
Available in:
2 October 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Request for the indication of new provisional measures - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 14 to Thursday 17 October 2013
Available in:
7 October 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Request for the indication of new provisional measures - Admission procedures, video streaming and practical information for the media
Available in:
15 October 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Nicaragua requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Available in:
17 October 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Conclusion of the public hearings on Costa Rica’s Request for the indication of new provisional measures
Available in:
21 October 2013
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Request for the indication of provisional measures filed by Nicaragua on 11 October 2013 - The Court to hold public hearings from Tuesday 5 to Friday 8 November 2013
Available in:
19 November 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Request for the indication of new provisional measures filed by Costa Rica - The Court to deliver its Order on Friday 22 November 2013 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
22 November 2013
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - The Court finds that Nicaragua must refrain from any dredging and other activities in the disputed territory and must, in particular, refrain from work of any kind on the two new caños, and that it must fill the trench on the beach north of the eastern caño within two weeks
Available in:
16 February 2015
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - The Court to hold public hearings from Tuesday 14 April to Friday 1 May 2015
Available in:
30 March 2015
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Changes to the schedule for the public hearings
Available in:
10 April 2015
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Examination of experts during the public hearings
Available in:
1 May 2015
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - Conclusion of the public hearings − The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
4 December 2015
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Wednesday 16 December 2015 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
16 December 2015
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - The Court finds that Nicaragua has violated Costa Rica's territorial sovereignty and navigational rights, as well as the Court's Order of 8 March 2011 indicating provisional measures, but that it did not breach procedural or substantive environmental obligations through its dredging of the San Juan River
Available in:
7 February 2017
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - The Court fixes time-limits for the filing of written pleadings on the question of compensation
Available in:
20 July 2017
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Question of compensation - The President of the Court authorizes the submission of a Reply by Costa Rica and a Rejoinder by Nicaragua and fixes time-limits for the filing of these pleadings
Available in:
18 January 2018
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Question of compensation - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Friday 2 February 2018 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
2 February 2018
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Question of compensation - The Court fixes the amount of compensation due from Nicaragua to Costa Rica
Available in:
23 March 2018
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) - Question of compensation - Nicaragua transfers the total amount of compensation awarded to Costa Rica
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 23 December 2008, the Federal Republic of Germany instituted proceedings against the Italian Republic, requesting the Court to declare that Italy had failed to respect the jurisdictional immunity which Germany enjoys under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it in the Italian courts seeking reparation for injuries caused by violations of international humanitarian law committed by the Third Reich during the Second World War. In addition, Germany asked the Court to find that Italy had also violated Germany’s immunity by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni, German State property situated in Italian territory. Finally, Germany requested the Court to declare that Italy had breached Germany’s jurisdictional immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek civil courts rendered against Germany on the basis of acts similar to those which had given rise to the claims brought before Italian courts. Germany referred in particular to the judgment rendered against it in respect of the massacre committed by German armed forces during their withdrawal in 1944, in the Greek village of Distomo in the Distomo case.
As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, Germany invoked Article 1 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957, ratified by Italy on 29 January 1960 and by Germany on 18 April 1961.
The Memorial of Germany and the Counter-Memorial of Italy were filed within the time-limits fixed by the Order of the Court of 29 April 2009. In its Counter-Memorial, Italy, referring to Article 80 of the Rules of Court, made a counter-claim “with respect to the question of the reparation owed to Italian victims of grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by forces of the German Reich”. The Court found that the counter-claim presented by Italy was inadmissible, because the dispute that Italy intended to bring before the Court by way of its counter-claim related to facts and situations existing prior to the entry into force as between the parties of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957, which formed the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction in the case (Order of 6 July 2010).
On 13 January 2011, Greece filed an Application requesting permission to intervene in the case. In its Application, Greece stated that it wished to intervene in the aspect of the procedure relating to judgments rendered by its own courts on the Distomo massacre and enforced (exequatur) by the Italian courts. The Court, in an Order of 4 July 2011, considered that it might find it necessary to consider the decisions of Greek courts in the Distomo case, in light of the principle of State immunity, for the purposes of making findings with regard to Germany’s submission that Italy had breached its jurisdictional immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts founded on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich during the Second World War. This permitted the conclusion that Greece had an interest of a legal nature which might have been affected by the judgment in the case and, consequently, that Greece could be permitted to intervene as a non-party “in so far as this intervention is limited to the decisions of Greek courts [in the Distomo case]”.
In its Judgment rendered on 3 February 2012, the Court first examined the question whether Italy had violated Germany’s jurisdictional immunity by allowing civil claims to be brought against that State in the Italian courts. The Court noted in this respect that the question which it was called upon to decide was not whether the acts committed by the Third Reich during the Second World War were illegal, but whether, in civil proceedings against Germany relating to those acts, the Italian courts were obliged to accord Germany immunity. The Court held that the action of the Italian courts in denying Germany immunity constituted a breach of Italy’s international obligations. It stated in this connection that, under customary international law as it presently stood, a State was not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it was accused of serious violations of international human rights law or the international law of armed conflict. The Court further observed that, assuming that the rules of the law of armed conflict which prohibited murder, deportation and slave labour were rules of jus cogens, there was no conflict between those rules and the rules on State immunity. The two sets of rules addressed different matters. The rules of State immunity were confined to determining whether or not the courts of one State could exercise jurisdiction in respect of another State. They did not bear upon the question whether or not the conduct in respect of which the proceedings were brought was lawful or unlawful. Finally, the Court examined Italy’s argument that the Italian courts were justified in denying Germany immunity, because all other attempts to secure compensation for the various groups of victims involved in the Italian proceedings had failed. The Court found no basis in the relevant domestic or international practice that international law made the entitlement of a State to immunity dependent upon the existence of effective alternative means of securing redress.
The Court then addressed the question whether a measure of constraint taken against property belonging to Germany located on Italian territory constituted a breach by Italy of Germany’s immunity. It noted that Villa Vigoni was being used for governmental purposes that were entirely non-commercial; that Germany had in no way consented to the registration of the legal charge in question, nor allocated Villa Vigoni for the satisfaction of the judicial claims against it. Since the conditions permitting a measure of constraint to be taken against property belonging to a foreign State had not been met in this case, the Court concluded that Italy had violated its obligation to respect Germany’s immunity from enforcement.
Finally, the Court examined the question whether Italy had violated Germany’s immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy civil judgments rendered by Greek courts against Germany in proceedings arising out of the massacre committed in the Greek village of Distomo by the armed forces of the Third Reich in 1944. It found that the relevant decisions of the Italian courts constituted a violation by Italy of its obligation to respect the jurisdictional immunity of Germany.
Accordingly, the Court declared that Italy must, by enacting appropriate legislation, or by resorting to other methods of its choosing, ensure that the decisions of its courts and those of other judicial authorities infringing the immunity which Germany enjoyed under international law cease to have effect.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
12 June 2009
Available in:
22 December 2009
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
24 March 2010
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
25 May 2010
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
13 January 2011
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
23 March 2011
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
28 March 2011
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
6 May 2011
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
27 May 2011
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
26 August 2011
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Verbatim record 2011/17
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Monday 12 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/18
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 13 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/19
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Wednesday 14 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/20
(bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 15 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)
Available in:
Verbatim record 2011/21
(bilingual version)