Mavrommatis Pil

FACTS:
• The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application instituting proceedings filed with the
Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in conformity with Article 40 of the Statute and Article
35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit
arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine, and consequently
also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, since the year 1921 to recognise to
their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and
agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities in regard to concessions for
certain public works to be constructed in Palestine.
Greece v. Britain
• The Greek Government, abandoning a portion of its original claim relating to the irrigation
works in the Jordan Valley, asks for judgment only in respect of two groups of concessions,
namely : those relating to the construction and working of an electric tramway system, the
supply of electric light and power and of drinking water in the city of Jerusalem, and those
relating to the construction and working of an electric tramway system, the supply of electric
light and power and of drinking water in the city of Jaffa and the irrigation of its gardens from
the waters of El-Hodja.
• The application instituting proceedings was, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute,
communicated to the Government of His Britannic Majesty on May 15th, 1924, and the Greek
Case was transmitted to that Government on May 31st. On June 3rd, His Britannic Majesty's
Government informed the Court that it found itself obliged to make a preliminary objection on
the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings in question. In
agreement with His Britannic Majesty's Government, the President fixed June 16th as the date
for the filing of the objection to the Court's jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
1. Does the matter before the Court constitute a dispute between the Mandatory and
another Member of the League of Nations ?
2. Is it a dispute which cannot be settled by negotiation ?
RULING:
Greece v. Britain
• A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of
interests between two persons. The present suit between Great Britain and
Greece certainly possesses these characteristics. The latter Power is asserting
its own rights by [p12] claiming from His Britannic Majesty's Government an
indemnity on the ground that M. Mavrommatis, one of its subjects, has been
treated by the Palestine or British authorities in a manner incompatible with
certain international obligations which they were bound to observe.
• In the case of the Mavrommatis concessions it is true that the dispute was at first
between a private person and a State -i.e. between M. Mavrommatis and Great
Britain. Subsequently, the Greek Government took up the case. The dispute then
entered upon a new phase; it entered the domain of international law, and
became a dispute between two States. Henceforward therefore it is a dispute
which may or may not fall under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of
International Justice.
RULING:
• Article 26 of the Mandate, in giving jurisdiction to the Permanent Court of

International Justice does not, in fact, merely lay down that there must be a
dispute which requires to be settled. It goes on to say that the dispute must be
between the Mandatory and another Member of the League of Nations. This is
undoubtedly the case in the present suit, since the claimant State Greece, like
Great Britain, has from the outset belonged to the League of Nations.
Greece v. Britain
• It is an elementary principle of international law that a State is entitled to protect
its subjects, when injured by acts contrary to international law committed by
another State, from whom they have been unable to obtain satisfaction through
the ordinary channels. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by
resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a
State is in reality asserting its own rights -its right to ensure, in the person of its
subjects, respect for the rules of international law.

Mavrommatis Pil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mavrommatis Pil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mavrommatis Pil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS:

2. Is it a dispute which cannot be settled by negotiation ?

• Article 26 of the Mandate, in giving jurisdiction to the Permanent Court of

You might also like