|
Languages.
Official
languages of the Court were French and English. The choice between
these two languages was given to parties. Judgment was delivered in
the language of the procedure, in the case of disagreement it was
delivered in two languages, one of which was considered as
authoritative. Upon the request from one of the parties the Court
could have authorized another language rather than one of the
official languages. In this case every submitted document should
have had English or French translation attached to it. Oral
proceeding was in one of the official languages and if parties have
chosen a different language, translation from one to another and vice
versa was made by the Registrar. The party that wanted to use an
unofficial language was responsible for translation.
|
Institution
of Proceedings
|
Cases
could have been brought by means of:
1.
notification of a special agreement, i.e. voluntary
jurisdiction, that arose from an agreement made ad hoc
for the submission of a particular matter.
The
Registrar had to be notified about the special agreement between
states by way of filing of a certified copy of the text of the
special agreement by at least one of the parties, usually with a
separate letter attached to the copies. Copies of the special
agreement were forwarded to members of the Court, League of Nations
and states that had to appear before the Court. Notification of
Special Agreement should have been submitted by all parties to the
Agreement or at least confirmed by other parties. Notification had
to be submitted in one of the official languages, or if submitted in
another language, parties had to submit its translation.
2.
written application, i.e. compulsory jurisdiction,
founded upon a general agreement with a right of unilateral
arraignment.
An
application had to have information mentioned in the list below. If
it did not meet these requirements the Registrar should have
informed the applicant of any inconsistencies. The party also should
have stated the provision which became the basis for the
jurisdiction of the Court. A written application had to be addressed
to the Registrar in French or English. The Registrar would send a
copy of the Application to the opposite party/parties, members of
the League of Nations, through the Secretary General, and to all
states entitled to appear before the Court.
The
document instituting proceedings would be brought to the attention
of all member-states.
Both
kinds of applications had to be addressed to the Registrar.
Applications had to include:
1.
subject of the dispute;
2. names of the parties;
3. statement of facts;
4. indication of the claim;
5. name of the applicant’s agent;
6. address at the seat of the Court to which notice and
communications were to be sent.
Unanimous
consent of parties was required for:
1.
referring the case to one of the Special Chambers;
2.
request of an assessor to be attached to the Court;
3.
referring a case to the Chamber for Summary Procedure;
4.
determination of the language of the procedure (if there was
consent between them);
5.
determination of whether hearings should be public or not;
6.
discontinuance of the case.
Cases
that fell under the jurisdiction of any Chamber mentioned under #1
above should have been heard either by the appropriate Chamber or
full court, and could not have been referred to the Chamber of the
Summary Procedure.
The
Registrar was responsible for notifying member-states of the League
of Nations and non-members interested in the case, as well as all
members of the court, in respect of all applications and special
agreements received by him/her.
The
Statute of the Court determined only the framework of the procedure.
Article 30 provided that the Court could make rules to regulate its
own procedure in particular cases and in general. It also had the
right to take for the basis of its procedures laws and regulations
of different countries and was bound neither by the different codes
of procedure nor terminology used in various states. Albiet new
rules adopted by the Court had to satisfy general principles of
procedure recognized by civilized nations. The Rules of Procedure
could have been changed by the Court at any time and the Court was
not obligated to notify parties in disputes about these changes
(although it happened only twice, and parties were notified). By
mutual consent parties could modify the rules of procedure for their
case, but this proposition was subject to the Court’s approval and
could not go against the Statute of the Court. Hence during the
determination of the procedure the President should have taken into
account the agreement of the parties as much as possible. Special
agreement between the parties in a case could also expand or
decrease the time-limit for certain procedures (presenting of
memorials or counter-memorials etc.).
|
Interim
Measures of Protection
|
On
an application made by one of the parties, or on the initiative of
the Court itself, the Court could provide provisional measures to
secure rights of the interested parties. This procedure for
providing interim measures of protection had a priority over all
other cases. If the Court was not sitting at the time of the
submission, the President could convene the Court. Presence of the
national judges was not necessary during the hearing concerning
interim measures. Compliance with a decision of the Court in such
matters is relatively dependent on the presence of the corresponding
article in the international treaty, but in any case failure to
comply with the decision was unacceptable. The responsibility for
further actions was borne by the Council.
In
the Court Parties must have been represented by agents and may have
been assisted by counsel or advocates. None of them was required to
have special qualification nor certain nationality, so parties were
free to choose their representatives as they saw fit.
|
General Scheme of Procedure.
|
[up]
|
The
Procedure consisted of two parts:
1. 1.written proceedings – communication to the
judges and to the parties of the case, counter-case, replies through
the Registrar within time-limits set by the Court. Parties received
copies of all documents submitted to the Court.
2.
2.oral proceedings – hearing of witnesses, experts,
agents, counsel and advocates before the Court. Parties could
propose special rules applicable to particular cases, which in order
to be exercised had to be approved by the Court.
Written Proceedings.
Article
43 of the Statute provided that "the written proceedings shall
consist of the communication to the judges and to the Parties of the
Cases, Counter-Cases, and if necessary Replies; also all papers and
documents in support." After hearing parties, the Court or the
President had to make necessary arrangements to determine the number
and order of the documents of the written proceedings as well as
time-limits within which documents of the written proceedings had to
be filed. The Court could define the time-limit for the filing of
some documents and could leave others without any specific deadline.
This was done in the way of issuing a court order which was sent to
each of the parties and the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations. Extensions of time-limits could have been made, as per one
of the parties' request, even if another party had not agreed to it.
The
originals of all the documents dated and signed by the agent(s) had
to be submitted to the Registrar. Parties were also obligated to
submit 50 certified copies of all documents.
In
cases by special agreement parties presented the following
documents:
1. memorial, presented
by each party within equal time-limit;
2.
counter-memorial;
3.
reply;
In
cases by written application parties presented the following
documents:
1. memorial by the
applicant;
2.
counter-memorial by the respondent;
3.
reply by the applicant;
4.
rejoinder by the respondent.
Memorials
had to contain:
1. statement of the
facts on which the claim was based;
2.
statement of law;
3.
statement of conclusions;
4.
list of documents in support of the case.
Counter-case
had to contain:
1. admission or
opposition of the stated case;
2.
statement of additional facts;
3.
statement of law;
4.
conclusions based on the facts stated;
5.
list of the documents in support that had to be attached to
the memorial or counter-memorial.
In
the Chamber for Summary Procedure:
-a
written statement made by each party.
If
one of the parties so requests the Chamber could ask for other
written statements.
In
a special proceeding initiated by a preliminary objection:
-the
written statement of the observations and submissions of the
respondent.
If
one of the parties so requested the Court could allow submission of
other written statements.
In
a subsidiary proceeding initiated by the request to intervene
parties had to submit their written observations.
In
a preliminary proceeding initiated by request for the revision of a
judgment observations were submitted by the applicant as well as by
the other party(ies).
In
a proceeding for interpretation of a judgment initiated by the
application, observations had to be submitted by the applicant as
well as by other parties (another party). The Court could request
additional explanations in writing or orally.
After
the parties were heard, any government of any state entitled to
appear before the Court had a right to access the cases and
counter-cases. In order to be able to see all these documents a
state had to get the consent of the Court or the President, in this
way parties were protected against the improper usage of the
information.
Termination
of the written proceedings was in most cases the moment when the
case was ready for hearing and the day of the oral hearing was set
up. There was no formal pronouncement of the termination, because in
practice not all supporting documents were presented even though
required documents of the written proceedings were.
.
Cases
were heard in the order they became ready for hearing, that was
reflected in the General List of Cases provided for in Article 20 of
1936 Rules. Also there were some cases that had priority over others
(i.e. a request of interim measures of protection or interpretation
of a judgment and cases before the Chamber for Summary Procedure).
Unlike
written proceedings, oral proceedings were not required for every
case brought before the Court. On the proposition of the parties, or
sometimes by a decision of the Court itself, the Court could
dispense with oral proceedings (e.g. in cases of the request for an
intervention, if there was no disagreement between parties; or in
the revision or interpretation of a judgment).
In
advisory proceedings the Registrar notified states and other
interested parties that the Court would be able to hear oral
statements at a public sitting, although States were not required to
bring the case before the Court for oral proceedings and could
dispense with it.
The
date of the actual hearing was fixed by the Court upon the
termination of the written proceedings. Hearings usually consisted
of the presentation of arguments made by agents, counsel and
advocates; witnesses and experts were rarely heard. The hearing was
usually held in public, but upon a request made by the parties, the
Court could allow a closed hearing.
If
the matter of facts arose before the Court, it made its decision on
the basis of either documents provided in the written proceedings or
statements given during oral proceedings. Such evidence as maps,
photographs etc., were frequently used by parties during oral
proceedings. Sometimes the full court, or more commonly several
judges, would visit the scene to which the case was related (Meuse
Case, Free Zone Case). Documentary evidence was not usually
submitted during oral proceedings, because after written proceedings
were terminated, additional documents could have been submitted only
with the consent of the other party. Nevertheless during oral
proceedings documents were frequently read or submitted on the
request of the Court or a separate judge. During oral proceedings
one party could ask another party to present certain documents. On
the invitation of the Court or parties witnesses or experts could
have given testimonies. Before opening of oral proceedings parties
had to inform the Court of witnesses and/or experts that they were
going to present as well as provide brief description of their
statements. Notes of the testimonies taken during the proceeding had
to be signed by a witness or expert. All service of documents except
those on agents, counsel and advocates had to be done by the Court
through governmental institutions, thus the Court had no power to
call witnesses or experts directly, but had to do it through
national courts and in accordance with national law. Both witnesses
and experts had to make an oath before making testimonies, but the
Court did not have power to punish them for false statements or
testimony. Hearing of agents and counsel could take place before or
after witnesses/’experts' testimonies. The order in which parties
were heard was decided either by the parties themselves or, in cases
of disagreement, by the Court. In case of:
-
written application – the applicant would be heard first;
-
special agreement – parties were heard in alphabetical order of
the names of the parties;
-
preliminary objection – objecting party would be heard first;
-
interim measures – intercessor would have a priority in the
hearing.
advisory
proceedings - parties were heard in the alphabetical order of the
names of the parties;
Rules
of the Court did not put any time-limits on the statements. Agents
and counsel could have been questioned by the Court as well.
At
the beginning of the oral proceeding every party should have defined
before the Court: the nature of the dispute and what it wants the
Court to decide. Even though it was not the Court’s responsibility
to define submissions, it could interpret them or ask for
appropriate clarification by the party that submitted it.
Submissions also had to be present in the preliminary objection
documents and replies. There were no deadlines for presenting the
submissions, except in cases where it was defined by the special
agreement. The content of the submission could have been changed at
any time, even at the end of the oral proceedings, though the Court
could limit changes that could have been done.
The
President declared the hearing closed when agents, advocates and
counsel were done with their statements and the Court was fully
satisfied with them. The Court could also ask parties for further
explanations after the proceedings were closed or reopen oral
proceedings.
Before
the beginning of the oral proceedings judges had a meeting for the
purpose of exchanging views and discussing procedural and
jurisdictional matters.
The
deliberations consisted of several phases:
1.
collective examination of the case – judges in turn on the
basis of the inverse order of seniority, commented on the case
involved. The President was responsible for ensuring that all
necessary questions were discussed. All judges submitted their
individual notes. On their basis the President prepared an agenda of
the next discussion.
2.
general discussion – judges voted on the points of
the case. On the ground of these votes the drafting committee was
elected (2 judges and the President). The committee prepared the
draft of the judgment or opinion that could have been amended by any
judge.
3.
first reading – the Court adopted the text of the
judgment. Judges were able to familiarize themselves with the
individual opinions of other judges.
4.
second reading – the Court adopted final text of the
judgment and adopted versions in both languages.
The
text of the judgment could have been changed before it had been read
in open Court.
All
questions were decided by the majority of judges present during
voting (in the order inverse to the order of precedence). No judge
could abstain from voting. If votes divided equally, the President
had the deciding vote. The minutes of private sessions included only
the subject of the debates, the votes taken, the names of judges
voting for and against a motion, and statements specifically made to
be included in the minutes. The minutes were approved by the Court
and signed by the President and the Registrar and had to be kept
confidential.
The
Court could issue 5 kinds of documents: 1) decision; 2) resolution;
3) order: 4) judgment; 5) opinion.
Decisions
- in cases of incidental questions that had to be decided during
oral proceedings. They were usually related to general procedural
matters. Decisions could be issued either by the Court or by the
President and could be formal or informal.
Resolutions
were also adopted to regulate particular procedural matters (to
invite agents to make certain statements, to send a special
communication to international organization; publication of record
of the hearing etc.)
Orders
were usually issued for the purpose of a) fixing deadlines, b) to
request submission of evidence, c) to cancel proceedings, d) joinder
of preliminary objections and applications, e) appointing judges ad
hoc, f) decision made on the request for interim measures of
protection. Although "orders [did] not have binding force or
final effect in deciding the dispute", compliance with them in
most cases would be required for next proceedings
Judgments.
The
judgment had to be given by the Court in these cases:
-
as a result
of contentious proceedings;
-
to open
proceedings for the revision of a judgment;
-
decision on
the request to intervene;
-
decision on
the request for revision or interpretation of the judgment.
The
judgment had to indicate:
-
date on
which it is pronounced;
-
number of judges constituting majority;
-
names of the participating judges (those who took part in all
proceedings);
-
names of
parties and agents;
-
etc.
The
parties and agents had to be informed of the date and time of the
open proceeding where judgment would be read. The judgment was
considered to be in effect after it had been read.
Judgments
consisted of the following parts:
1.
summary of the proceedings and submissions of the parties;
2.
statement of the facts;
3.
reasons in point of law;
4.
operative provisions.
The
operative part was written as a recommendation rather than a
command, and disclosed acts/provisions that had to be done in this
case in accordance with the law. In the case of a special agreement
the Court tried to keep the "language" of the judgment as
close as possible to the actual agreement. After the judgment was
pronounced, parties could dispose of their legal rights, and as a
result cancel the liability under the judgment.
Opinions
There
were two kinds of opinions:
1.
Dissenting opinions – issued by dissenting judge and
attached to a judgment, advisory opinion or even an order, these
opinions had to represent the personal opinion of the judge that is
different from the one accepted by the Court on the matter in
question, but not a criticism of the judgment or opinion of the
Court. All judges should be informed of the text of any dissents
before the end of the second reading.
2.
Concurring opinions – issued by the judges in the
form of observations or separate opinions that did not directly
contradict the judgment or opinion of the rest of the Court. For
more details see March 17, 1936 Resolution of the Court.
On
the request of one of the parties the Court could provide
interpretation of the judgment. If the judgment has been made by the
Chamber it should have been interpreted by the Chamber, if it was
made by the full Court it had to be interpreted by the full Court.
The interpretation was given in the form of a judgment, but it could
not have gone beyond the limits of the judgment itself, because it
could not add anything to the judgment and could not have more
jurisdiction that the judgment had. The Court could use only facts
that were used for the judgment.
The
Court could also revise the judgment upon the request of a party,
but prior to that it could require compliance with the first
judgment. The procedure for the revision of the judgment consisted
of the same parts as usual contentious proceedings.
The
Court had neither power nor responsibility to look for the execution
of the judgment. It could not in any way penalize a defaulting
party. On the other hand, member-states of the League of Nations
were bound by Article 13 (4) to execute the judgment made by the
Court, otherwise the Council had to propose the steps that had to be
made in order for the judgment to be enforced. If the state still
did not comply with the decision any other member-state could
provide economic measures applicable in that case. There were only a
few cases in which the Court had to perform specific acts and all
judgments of the Court were enforced.
|