|
|
[p161] The Court,
composed as above,
delivers the following judgment:
[1] By an Application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 5th, 1938,
under Article 40 of the Statute, the Belgian Government instituted
proceedings before the Court against the Greek Government.
[2] In submitting the case, the Applicant invoked the Treaty of
conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement of June 25th, 1929,
between Belgium and Greece [FN1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] 113 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3] After a succinct statement of the facts and arguments adduced in support
of the claim, the Application prayed the Court:
"(1) to declare that the Greek Government, by refusing to comply with the
arbitral award made in favour of the Societe commerciale de Belgique, has
violated its international obligations;
(2) to assess the amount of the compensation due in respect of this
violation".
[4] On May 5th, 1938, notice of the Application was given to the Greek
Government, and on May 10th the communications provided for in Article 40 of
the Statute and Article 34 of the Rules of Court were duly despatched.
[5] As the Court does not include upon the Bench a judge of Greek
nationality, the Greek Government availed itself of its right under Article
31 of the Statute and nominated M. C. G. Tenekides.
[6] The two Governments appointed as their Agents: the Belgian Government,
M. F. Muuls, assisted by Maitres Sand and Levy Morelle, and the Greek
Government, M. Ch. Diamantopoulos, assisted by M. Jean Youpis.
[7] By an Order made on June 3rd, 1938, the Court fixed the time-limits for
the filing of the Memorial by the Belgian Government [p162] and of the
Counter-Memorial by the Greek Government. The time-limits for the filing of
the Reply of the Belgian Government and of the Rejoinder of the Greek
Government were fixed by an Order made by the President of the Court on
September 30th, 1938. By an Order made on December 1st, 1938, at the request
of the Greek Government, the time-limit fixed for the filing of the
Rejoinder was extended to December 20th, 1938. The various documents of the
written proceedings having been duly filed within the time-limits as thus
finally fixed, the case became ready for hearing on December 20th, 1938.
[8] In its Memorial, the Belgian Government prayed the Court:
"A. To declare that the State of Greece, by refusing to execute as regards
the payment of its debt the arbitral award given at Paris on July 25th,
1936, in favour of the Societe commerciale de Belgique, has violated its
international obligations;
B. To order the State of Greece in consequence to pay to the Belgian
Government, for the benefit of the Societe commerciale de Belgique, the sums
due to that Company under the award of July 25th, 1936;
C. To authorize the Belgian Government to assess the additional damages
sustained, either by it or by its national, the Societe commerciale de
Belgique, as the result of the facts set out above."
[9] In its Counter-Memorial, the Greek Government prayed the Court
"to dismiss all the claims formulated against it in this case by the Belgian
Government".
[10] In its Reply, the Belgian Government maintained the submissions of its
Memorial and added the following:
"May it please the Court:
Subject to the presentation of any amplified submissions in the course of
the proceedings and rejecting all submissions to the contrary,
A. To place on record for the benefit of the Belgian Government that the
Greek Government declares that it acknowledges without reserve the
definitive and obligatory character of all the provisions of the arbitral
awards given in favour of the Societe commerciale de Belgique on January 3rd
and July 25th, 1936.
B. To declare in consequence that the conditions for the settlement of the
Greek external public debt must remain foreign to the execution of these
awards.
C. To declare that the Greek Government has no right to impose upon the
Company or upon the Belgian Government the proposal for a settlement made by
it on December 31st, 1936." [p163]
[11] In its Rejoinder, the Greek Government prayed the Court:
"to dismiss all the claims and submissions formulated against it in the
present case by the Belgian Government".
[12] In the course of public sittings held on May 15th, 16th, 17th and 19th,
1939, the Court heard:
on behalf of Belgium, M. F. Muuls, Agent, Maitre Levy Morelle and Maitre
Sand; and on behalf of Greece, M. Jean Youpis.
[13] After Counsel for the Belgian Government had presented and explained
the claim and the submissions of his Government, Counsel for the Greek
Government, in his oral argument on May 17th, 1939, presented the following
submissions:
"May it please the Court:
(1) To dismiss the claim of the Belgian Government for a declaration that
the State of Greece has violated its international obligations, and to
declare that the State of Greece has been prevented by force majeure from
carrying out the arbitral awards of January 3rd and July 25th, 1936;
(2) To dismiss the claim of the same Government for an order by the Court
that the State of Greece should pay to it, for the benefit of the Societe
commerciale de Belgique, the sums due to that Company under the award of
July 25th, 1936,
Alternatively, to declare that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on this
claim;
(3)To place on record for the benefit of the Belgian Government that the
Greek Government acknowledges that the arbitral awards of January 3rd and
July 25th, 1936, have the force of res judicata, subject to the express
reservation that it is unable to execute them as formulated;
That it is ready to discuss and to conclude with the Societe commerciale de
Belgique an arrangement for the execution of these awards so far as its
budgetary and monetary capacity allows;
That, in principle, the fair and equitable basis for such an arrangement is
to be found in the agreements concluded or to be concluded by the Greek
Government with the bondholders of its external public debt;
(4) To dismiss all the Belgian Government's submissions to the contrary."
[14] On the other hand, Counsel for the Belgian Government, in his oral
reply of the same day, presented the following submissions in the name of
the Agent for that Government:
"In view of the Application of the Belgian Government dated May 4th, 1938,
together with the submissions and additional submissions of the two Parties,
Noting that the Greek Government expressly acknowledges the definitive and
obligatory character of all the provisions of [p164] the arbitral awards
given in favour of the Societe commerciale de Belgique on January 3rd and
July 25th, 1936, but with reservations which destroy the effect of that
acknowledgment,
The Belgian Government submits
THAT THE COURT MAY BE PLEASED:
A. To adjudge and declare that all the provisions of the arbitral awards
given in favour of the Societe commerciale de Belgique on January 3rd and
July 25th, 1936, are without reserve definitive and obligatory for the Greek
Government;
B. Consequently to adjudge and declare:
1. That the Greek Government is bound in law to execute the said awards;
2. That the conditions for the settlement of the Greek external public debt,
to which the Greek Government desires to subordinate payment of the
financial charge imposed upon it, are and must remain foreign to the
execution of these awards;
3. That it is without right or title that the Greek Government has sought to
impose upon the Company or the Belgian Government, as a condition precedent
to payment, either the methods of settlement of its external debt or the
sacrifice of other rights of the Company recognized by the arbitral awards;
C. To reject the submissions of the Greek Government."
[15] Counsel for the Greek Government, in his oral rejoinder on May 19th,
1939, submitted in the name of the Agent for that Government:
"That the Court may be pleased:
(1) To dismiss the claim of the Belgian Government for a declaration that
the State of Greece has violated its international obligations, and to
declare that the State of Greece has been prevented by force majeure from
executing the arbitral awards of January 3rd and July 25th, 1936;
(2) To dismiss the claim of the same Government for an order by the Court
that the State of Greece should pay to it, for the benefit of the Societe
commerciale de Belgique, the sums due to that Company under the award of
July 25th, 1936,
Alternatively, to declare that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on this
claim;
To declare:
(3) That the Greek Government acknowledges that the arbitral awards of
January 3rd and July 25th, 1936, given between itself and the Societe
commerciale de Belgique, have the force of res judicata;
(4) that, by reason of its budgetary and monetary situation, however, it is
materially impossible for the Greek Government to execute the awards as
formulated; [p165]
(5) that the Greek Government and the Societe commerciale de Belgique should
be left to come to an arrangement for the execution of these awards which
will correspond with the budgetary and monetary capacity of the debtor;
(6) that, in principle, the fair and equitable basis for such an arrangement
is to be found in the agreements concluded or to be concluded by the Greek
Government with the bondholders of its external public debt;
(7) to dismiss all the Belgian Government's submissions to the contrary."
[16] At the conclusion of the same hearing, the representatives of the
Belgian Government declared that that Government maintained only the
submissions presented by it on May 17th; nevertheless, having regard to the
fresh submissions of the Greek Government, they requested the Court
"to place on record that
the Belgian Government declares that it has never been its intention to
claim on behalf of the Company settlement in full by means of a single
payment,
and that
it was in order to avoid any misconception in this respect that it had,
after the hearings, substituted for its request that the Greek Government
should be ordered to pay as reparation the sums due to the Company under the
award, a final submission to the effect that the awards should be declared
definitive-and obligatory without reserve, and with the corollaries which
such decision involves".
[17] Documents in support of their contentions were filed on behalf of each
Party [FN1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] See list in Annex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[18] The above being the state of the proceedings, the Court must now
adjudicate.
***
[19] The facts in which the case originated are as follows:
[20] On August 27th, 1925, an agreement was concluded between the Greek
Government and the Societe commerciale de Belgique for the construction in
Greece by the Belgian Company on behalf of the Greek Government of certain
railway lines and for the reconstruction of certain other lines, and for the
supply of the equipment necessary for their operation. The contract was
ratified by Article 1 of the Greek Decree-Law of October 6th, 1925, Article
2 thereof giving it the force of law; it was published in the Official
Journal of the Greek Government on the 8th of the same month. The contract
was interpreted, completed and modified by subsequent agreements, but only
as regards details. [p166]
[21] The contract provided that the financing of the works to be undertaken
by the Company and the payment for the rolling stock and other supplies to
be furnished by the Company were to be covered by a loan to the Greek
Government by the Belgian Company, the Greek Government in return issuing
bonds to the Company, which were to constitute a debt of the Greek State and
were to form part of its external debt.
[22] The contract also provided for the reference to arbitration of any
disputes which might arise. The relevant terms of the Article on this
subject were as follows:
"All disputes of every kind, whether technical or economic, will be referred
to an arbitration commission of three members. Each Party will nominate an
arbitrator selected by it, and the third will be nominated by the other two
or, in case they should disagree, by the President of the International
Court of Arbitration at The Hague. The arbitrators will work on the French
text which alone is authoritative.
The proceedings will be conducted as in arbitration cases.
The Parties will be dispensed from observing the ordinary forms of procedure
and will be bound to respect the fundamental rules of the rights of defence,
in particular the obligation to communicate all documents produced in the
course of the proceedings. The decisions of the arbitrators will be final
and without appeal."
[23] In view of the arbitration which subsequently took place in accordance
with the above Article, it is unnecessary to set out any details as to the
work to be carried out by the Company under the contract, or as to the
difficulties and complaints which arose on either side as to the execution
of the contract.
[24] In 1932 the Greek Government was obliged, on account of the general
financial crisis, to abandon the gold standard and to default in the service
of its debt. It was able to pay the coupon due on April 1st of that year,
but not the coupon due on July 1st. The Company, seeing that it was not
going to get the money due to it either for interest or amortization on the
bonds received by it under the contract, could not continue the payment of
its sub-contractors, with the result that the work undertaken by these
sub-contractors came to an end.
[25] In view of the default by the Greek Government on the bonds delivered
to the Company, the Company decided to resort to arbitration under the
provisions of the clause set out above. The proposal which it made to this
effect to the Greek Government on July 26th, 1933, was accepted by that
Government on September 21st. Considerable delay ensued, however, in
organizing the Arbitral Commission and in completing the necessary
preliminaries, and it was not until November 29th, [p167] 1935, that the
Arbitral Commission was able to begin the hearing of the suit.
[26] On January 3rd, 1936, the Arbitral Commission gave its first award
providing for the cancellation of the contract of August 27th, 1925, between
the Belgian Company and the Greek Government as from July 1st, 1932, and for
the appointment of a body of experts to fix the amount and the method of
payment of such sum as should be found to be payable by either Party to the
other as the result of the cancellation of the contract.
[27] On July 25th, 1936, the Arbitral Commission gave a second award in
which it adopted and gave effect to the report of the experts appointed in
pursuance of the earlier award. By this second award, the sum payable by the
Greek Government to the Company was fixed at 6,771,868 gold dollars with
interest at 5% from August 1st, 1936, account being taken in the fixing of
this amount of various sums payable or repayable by one Party to the other.
The arbitral award also took note of an arrangement which had been arrived
at between the Parties for substituting the Government for the Company in
all matters outstanding between the Company and third parties. By other
clauses in the award the Company was released from all further
responsibility in connection with works or supplies under the contract,
except that it was to hand over to the Government plans and papers relating
to the works, plant and machinery obtained at the expense of the Government
and certain rolling stock which still remained in Belgium. The Government,
on the other hand, was to restore to the Company a letter of guarantee which
the Company had deposited for the fulfilment of the contract.
[28] An examination of the terms of these two arbitral awards shows that
many questions which have been debated between the Parties in the course of
the oral and written proceedings in the present case were also the subject
of debate before the Arbitral Commission and were taken into account in its
awards. Thus, the question whether any liability on the part of the Greek
Government arising from the cancellation of the contract of August 27th,
1925, could be regarded as part of the external debt of Greece and subjected
to the same conditions of payment as applied to that debt, was brought
before the arbitrators.
[29] The provisions in the awards other than that relating to the payment of
the $6,771,868 have been carried out by the Greek Government. A law was
adopted in November 1936 substituting the Greek Government for the Company
in all the latter's relations with third parties, and the letter of
guarantee was returned to the Company. [p168]
[30] As regards the payment of the sum declared to be due to the Company,
nothing has been achieved. Letters from the Company as to the payment by the
Government of the sum due provoked no response.
[31] In December 1936, the Belgian Company sent two delegates to Athens in
the hope that they might be able to conclude an agreement with the Greek
Government as to the payment of the debt.
[32] After a visit to the Ministry of Finance on December 21st, the
delegates submitted in writing a proposal on behalf of the Company that the
Government should pay $4,000,000 at once and the balance in quarterly
instalments. On December 31st the Greek Government replied that it could not
depart from its views as to the character of its debt to the Company; it
considered this to be a part of the Greek public debt, with the result that
the same methods of payment must apply to it as to the public external debt,
and the interest payments must be arranged on the same basis, i.e., the same
percentages would be paid as in the case of the public debt interest, and
the balance would remain in suspense until a final settlement was arrived at
as regards the public external debt. As in the case of other external loans
on a gold basis, payment could not be made in gold as provided in the
original contract and in the arbitral awards. Pending the conclusion of a
definitive arrangement as regards the Greek public external debt, the
Government would make an immediate payment of $300,000.
[33] The note went on to point out that the obligations undertaken by the
Government in substitution for the Company in respect of liabilities to
third parties were involving it in an expenditure of $1,000,000, and that
the Company had in hand a sum amounting to $1,800,000 representing the
interest returnable to the Government and the interest on sums deposited
with it by third parties by way of guarantee.
[34] The terms offered by the Greek Government in its note of December 31st,
1936, were not acceptable to the Belgian Company. The representatives of the
Company replied on January 5th, 1937, urging that the contents of the note
from the Greek Government, if insisted on, would amount to a refusal to
recognize the terms of the arbitral awards, that these awards had confirmed
the commercial character of the Company's debt, that the debt was no part of
the Greek external debt, and was not a debt of the payment of which the
bondholders could complain. They said the offer of $300,000 was quite
inadequate and that the financial position of the Company necessitated
[p169] the payment by the Greek Government of a substantial sum.
[35] The negotiations led to nothing. Another offer made by the Company was
refused by the Government, with the result that, on May 21st, 1937, the
Company withdrew its offers and applied to the Belgian Government for its
protection.
[36] In 1933, at the time of the default on the Greek public debt,
investigations were made at the request of the Greek Government by the
Financial Committee of the League of Nations as to the position of the Greek
finances. Extracts from the reports of the Financial Committee are included
among the documents which have been submitted to the Court and confirm the
contention that the financial position of the Greek Government was
difficult.
[37] Negotiations have also been carried on by the Greek Government with the
bondholders as to the service of the external debt. Agreements have been
made from time to time as regards the service of the debt during particular
periods. Copies of these agreements are included among the annexes to the
documents of the written proceedings. Under these agreements a percentage
only of the sums due for interest is to be paid, nothing is to be paid in
respect of sinking fund, and a clause is inserted that, if more favourable
terms are given by the Greek Government to other external loans of or
guaranteed by the Greek State, equally favourable treatment should be given
to the loans covered by the agreements.
[38] On June 14th, 1937, the Belgian Government took up the case of the
Belgian Company. Basing his action on the Greek note of December 31st, 1936,
the Belgian Minister at Athens approached the Greek Government and asked for
a re-examination of the case in order to avoid a dispute between the two
Governments. No answer, save an acknowledgment of receipt, was received
until September 6th, 1937, when the Greek Government sent a reply
maintaining the position it had taken up in the note of December 31st, 1936,
viz., that it regarded its debt to the Company as part of the external debt
of the country, and one that could only be met on the same footing as the
external debt. The financial position of the country and the difficulties as
to foreign exchange, as well as the engagements it had entered into with the
bondholders, obliged the Government to propose an arrangement for the
liquidation of the debt on a long term basis with a rate of interest
appropriate to the conditions then existing. [p170]
[39] On December 22nd, 1937, the Belgian Minister addressed a further note
to the Greek Government maintaining that it followed from the note of
September 6th that the Greek Government refused to accept as binding the
awards given by the Arbitration Commission and that the note disregarded
essential stipulations in the awards. In these circumstances � the note went
on � the Belgian Government could only regard the diplomatic negotiations as
having failed and proposed that the dispute should be referred to the
Permanent Court of International Justice by a special agreement.
[40] The Greek Government declined to accede to this proposal on the ground
that the case was not within the jurisdiction of the Court; thereupon the
Belgian Government instituted the present proceedings unilaterally by an
Application filed on May 4th, 1938.
[41] The Application of the Belgian Government asked the Court to declare
that the Greek Government, by refusing to carry out the arbitral awards in
favour of the Belgian Company, had violated its international obligations.
[42] This same argument was repeated and developed at length in the Memorial
filed by the Belgian Government. It was the refusal of the Greek Government
to carry out the principal provision in the arbitral awards, i.e., the
payment of the sum awarded, which constituted the violation of the
international obligations incumbent upon Greece.
[43] In its Counter-Memorial the Greek Government disputed the allegation
that it had refused to carry out the arbitral awards: "Il n'est nullement
vrai que le Gouvernement hell�nique ait refus� d'ex�cuter la sentence
arbitrale; � aucun moment, il n'a song� � mettre en doute sa valeur ni �
refuser son ex�cution; il est par contre respectueux de la chose jug�e...."
It was also maintained in the Counter-Memorial that the Greek Govern�ment
had carried out the provisions of the award other than the payment of the
large sum awarded, and that as regards the financial part of the awards it
had made an offer which was as large as its financial position would permit.
It was argued that the Greek Government had neither refused to carry out the
awards nor disregarded the acquired rights of the Belgian Company, and
contended that the Greek Government had committed no act which was contrary
to international law. The Counter-Memorial therefore asked for the rejection
of the Belgian submissions. � It was also said that: "Il est bien entendu
que la sentence arbitrale maintient par elle-m�me toute sa valeur dans les
rapports entre le Gouvernement hell�nique et la soci�t� belge, et aucune
confirmation par la Cour de cette sentence n'est n�cessaire ni possible en
droit." [p171]
[44] The Belgian Reply treated the above declarations of the Greek
Government as changing the character of the dispute between the two Parties.
Though continuing to maintain that in fact the Greek Government had refused
to carry out the awards and therefore maintaining the submissions of the
Memorial, the Reply asked the Court to take note of the declaration by the
Greek Government that it acknowledged without reserve the obligatory
character of the arbitral awards, and to hold that in consequence the
conditions for the payment of the Greek external debt had nothing to do with
the execution of the arbitral awards, and that the Greek Government had no
right to impose on the Company or on the Belgian Government the settlement
indicated in the note of December 31st, 1936.
[45] In its Rejoinder the Greek Government continued to maintain, as in its
Counter-Memorial, that the Belgian claim was unjustified in law and should
be rejected. There was no refusal by the Greek Government to carry out the
financial part of the awards. Payment of the sum fixed therein was
impossible for it by reason of its financial and monetary position and
because of the agreements with the bondholders of the public external debt.
[46] At the beginning of the oral hearings, the Belgian Agent repeated the
submissions of the Reply, but without withdrawing those of the Memorial.
Similarly, the arguments addressed to the Court by the Belgian Counsel were
largely devoted to showing that there had been refusal to carry out the
arbitral awards and intentional disregard of its terms by the Greek
Government.
[47] At the conclusion of the oral reply by the Belgian Counsel on May 17th,
the submissions of the Belgian Government were given a new form. The
allegation that Greece in refusing to execute the arbitral awards had
violated her international obligations, and the claim that the Court should
order Greece to pay the amount awarded together with additional damages,
disappeared. Similarly, the submission in the written Reply asking the Court
to place on record for the benefit of Belgium that the Greek Government
declared that it acknowledged without reserve the obligatory character of
the arbitral awards disappeared; it was replaced by a statement placing on
record the fact that the Greek Government declared that it acknowledged the
obligatory character of the awards, but that the declaration was accompanied
by reserves which destroyed the effect of the acknowledgement. The Belgian
Government therefore asked the Court to say that all the provisions of the
awards were binding on the Greek Government without reserve and added
certain subsidiary and, in its view, consequential [p172] demands. At a
subsequent hearing the Belgian Counsel also asked the Court to take note
that the Belgian Government had never intended to insist on a single lump
sum payment in favour of the Belgian Company, and that it was in order to
avoid any misconception on this point that the Belgian Government had
substituted its final submission seeking from the Court a declaration as to
the definitive and obligatory character of the awards for its previous
demand for an order by the Court that the Greek Government should pay by way
of reparation the sum due to the Company under the awards.
[48] No objection was made by the Greek Agent to the abandonment by the
Belgian Agent of the submissions alleging that the Greek Government had
violated its international obligations by refusing to pay the arbitral
awards in favour of the Company. He must indeed be taken to have assented to
their being dropped, as he stated that if the two Belgian claims were
withdrawn the first two Greek submissions as presented on the last day of
the hearings would have no importance.
[49] Except as regards the abandonment of the two submissions which were
directed particularly to the Belgian submissions that had been withdrawn,
the Greek submissions have not undergone any fundamental change in the
course of the proceedings. After asking the Court to reject the Belgian
contention that there had been a refusal on the part of the Greek Government
to execute the arbitral awards, the Greek submissions prayed the Court to
declare that the Greek Government acknowledges these awards as having the
force of res judicata, even if for financial reasons it was unable to pay
the sum adjudged to be due to the Belgian Company.
[50] In these submissions in their final form, stress is laid upon the need
of negotiations between the Parties for the conclusion of an agreement as to
the execution of the awards (No. 5); a view which appears to be shared by
the representatives of the Belgian Government, as at the close of the
hearing on May 19th the Belgian Counsel intimated that if, after the legal
situation has been determined, the Belgian Government should have to deal
with the question of payment, it would have regard to the legitimate
interests of the Company, to the ability of Greece to pay and to the
traditional friendship between the two countries. In this spirit it would be
disposed to conclude a special agreement with a view to settling ex aquo et
bono any difficulties which might arise in regard to proposals made by
Greece for instalment payments. [p173]
*
[51] These are the circumstances in which the Court is now called upon to
adjudicate on the case before it.
***
[52] The Court has not failed to consider the question whether the Statute
and Rules of Court authorize the parties to transform the character of a
case as profoundly as the Belgian Government has done in this case.
[53] It is to be observed that the liberty accorded to the parties to amend
their submissions up to the end of the oral proceedings must be construed
reasonably and without infringing the terms of Article 40 of the Statute and
Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Rules which provide that the Application
must indicate the subject of the dispute. The Court has not hitherto had
occasion to determine the limits of this liberty, but it is clear that the
Court cannot, in principle, allow a dispute brought before it by application
to be transformed by amendments in the submissions into another dispute
which is different in character. A practice of this kind would be calculated
to prejudice the interests of third States to which, under Article 40,
paragraph 2, of the Statute, all applications must be communicated in order
that they may be in a position to avail themselves of the right of
intervention provided for in Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute. Similarly, a
complete change in the basis of the case submitted to the Court might affect
the Court's jurisdiction.
[54] The Court, however, considers that the special circumstances of this
case as set out above, and more especially the absence of any objection on
the part of the Agent for the Greek Government, render it advisable that it
should take a broad view and not regard the present proceedings as
irregular.
*
[55] The submissions before the Court are therefore those presented by the
Belgian Government at the hearing on May 17th and those presented by the
Greek Government on May 19th. With regard to the latter, it is to be noted
however that, as has been said above, submissions Nos. 1 and 2 are to be
regarded as abandoned, because the claims of the Belgian Government as to
the violation of international obligations and the award by the Court of the
sums due to the Societe commerciale de Belgique, against which these
submissions were directed and the rejection of which they sought, have been
withdrawn. The only submissions remaining before the Court are therefore
Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. [p174]
[56] With regard to its jurisdiction to adjudicate on these submissions, it
is sufficient for the Court to observe that the Greek Government has raised
no objection; on the contrary, it has submitted arguments on the merits and
has asked for a decision on the merits. In regard to this point, the Parties
are therefore in agreement.
[57] It should however be added that, since the arbitral awards to which
these submissions relate are, according to the arbitration clause under
which they were made, "final and without appeal", and since the Court has
received no mandate from the Parties in regard to them, it can neither
confirm nor annul them either wholly or in part.
*
[58] Submission A of the Belgian Government prays the Court "to adjudge and
declare that all the provisions of the arbitral awards given in favour of
the Societe commerciale de Belgique on January 3rd and July 25th, 1936, are
without reserve definitive and obligatory for the Greek Government".
[59] Taken literally, this submission appears to ask the Court to examine
the arbitral awards and to confirm their terms. For the reason stated above,
the Court cannot do this.
[60] If regard be had to the origin of this submission, however, it will be
seen that this is not the intention of the Belgian Government.
[61] In its Reply, the Belgian Government for the first time presented a
submission praying the Court "to place on record for the benefit of the
Belgian Government that the Greek Government declares that it acknowledges
without reserve the definitive and obligatory character of all the
provisions of the arbitral awards given in favour of the Societe commerciale
de Belgique on January 3rd and July 25th, 1936". This submission was due to
certain passages in the Counter-Memorial to the effect that the Greek
Government had never at any time intended to throw doubt upon the validity
of the arbitral awards or to refuse to carry them out; the financial
conditions of the country had alone prevented the Greek Government from
complying with the awards and had obliged it to propose an arrangement to
the Company. In asking the Court to place these declarations on record, the
Belgian Government's object clearly was to have on record the agreement thus
arrived at regarding the validity of the awards and to exclude any
reservation which the Greek Government might have sought to attach to its
recognition of res judicata. The same idea is clearly expressed in the
second paragraph of the preamble which precedes the final submissions
presented by the Belgian Government at the hearing on May 17th. [p175]
[62] Accordingly, submission A of the Belgian Government is founded on the
fact that the Greek Government has acknowledged that the arbitral awards
have the force of res judicata: it does not ask the Court either to examine
the arbitral awards or to confirm them; its object is simply to get the
Court to record the legal situation established by the arbitral awards
between the Parties as a result of the Greek Government's acknowledgement of
the validity and binding force of those awards.
[63] In its submission No. 3, the Greek Government prays the Court to
declare "that the Greek Government acknowledges that the arbitral awards of
January 3rd and July 25th, 1936, given between itself and the Societe
commerciale de Belgique have the force of res judicata". Recognition of an
award as res judicata means nothing else than recognition of the fact that
the terms of that award are definitive and obligatory. Moreover, the Belgian
Government has constantly used this latter expression as equivalent to the
expression "recognition of res judicata", and the Greek Government has
raised no objection. It follows that the Greek submission No. 3 corresponds
to the Belgian submission A. Though it is true that the latter submission
asks the Court to declare that the provisions of the arbitral awards are
"without reserve" definitive and binding upon the Greek Government, it is
likewise true that submission No. 3 contains no reservation. The Court will
consider later whether the subsequent submissions of the Greek Government
are to be regarded as implying a reservation respecting its recognition of
res judicata. For the moment it will suffice to note that the two Parties
are in agreement: the Belgian Government asks the Court to say that the
arbitral awards have the force of res judicata, and the Greek Government
asks the Court to declare that it recognizes that they possess this force.
*
[64] Submission B of the Belgian Government prays the Court
"Consequently to adjudge and declare:
1. That the Greek Government is bound in law to execute the said awards;
2. That the conditions for the settlement of the Greek external public debt
to which the Greek Government desires to subordinate payment of the
financial charge imposed upon it, are and must remain foreign to the
execution of these awards;
3. That it is without right or title that the Greek Government has sought to
impose upon the Company or the Belgian Government, as a condition precedent
to payment, either the methods of settlement of its external debt or the
sacrifice of other rights of the Company recognized by the arbitral awards".
[p176]
[65] Two observations are necessary here.
[66] The submission is expressly presented as a consequence of the preceding
submission and therefore of the existence of res judicata. It is in fact
clear that everything in the three paragraphs of this submission follows
logically from the definitive and obligatory character of the arbitral
awards. If the awards are definitive and obligatory, it is certain that the
Greek Government is bound to execute them and to do so as they stand: it
cannot therefore claim to subordinate payment of the financial charge
imposed upon it to the conditions for the settlement of the Greek external
public debt, since that has not been admitted in the awards. Nor can it make
the sacrifice of any right of the Company recognized by the awards a
condition precedent to payment.
[67] Since the Greek Government states that it recognizes the arbitral
awards as possessing the force of res judicata, it cannot contest this
submission of the Belgian Government without contradicting itself. It does
not in fact contest it; its submissions regarding the execution of the
awards proceed from another point of view, as will presently be seen. The
Court may therefore say that the Belgian submission B is neither necessary
nor disputed.
[68] The second observation to be made concerns the words "in law" which, in
No. 1 of submission B, qualify the obligation of the Greek Government to
carry out the arbitral awards. In the opinion of the Court, these words mean
that the Belgian Government here adopts the strictly legal standpoint
regarding the effects of res judicata, a standpoint which, in fact, does not
preclude the possibility of arrangements which, without affecting the
authority of res judicata, would take into, account the debtor's capacity to
pay.
*
[69] It is precisely the standpoint of fact and of considerations as to what
would be fair and equitable, as opposed to that of strict law, which the
Greek Government adopts in its submissions 4, 5 and 6; after having
recognized that the arbitral awards possess the force of res judicata, it
asks the Court, in these submissions, to declare:
"(4) that, by reason of its budgetary and monetary situation however, it is
materially impossible for the Greek Government to execute the awards as
formulated;
(5) that the Greek Government and the Societe commerciale de Belgique should
be left to come to an arrangement for the execution of these awards which
will correspond with the budgetary and monetary capacity of the debtor;
[p177]
(6) that, in principle, the fair and equitable basis for such an arrangement
is to be found in the agreements concluded or to be concluded by the Greek
Government with the bondholders of its external public debt".
[70] In order to appreciate the precise import of these submissions, it
should above all be borne in mind that, according to the clear declarations
made by the Parties during the proceedings, the question of Greece's
capacity to pay is outside the scope of the proceedings before the Court. It
was in order to show that the Belgian submission to the effect that Greece
had violated her international obligations � a submission now abandoned �
was ill-founded that the Greek Government was led to give a general
description of the budgetary and monetary situation of the country. It is
not therefore likely that the Greek Government's intention was to ask the
Court for a decision on this point in its submission No. 4. In the opinion
of the Court, submission No. 4 only raises the question of Greece's capacity
to pay in connection with submission No. 5, that is to say the claim that
the Greek Government and the Societe cornmerciale de Belgique should be left
to negotiate an arrangement corresponding with the budgetary and monetary
capacity of the debtor.
[71] It follows that, notwithstanding the word "however", submission No. 4
implies no reservation regarding the recognition of res judicata in No. 3;
it proceeds from a standpoint other than that of the rights acknowledged by
the arbitral awards. It also follows that submission No. 4 could be
entertained by the Court only if it entertained No. 5: only in that case
would it have to consider whether the budgetary and monetary situation of
Greece would call for negotiations.
[72] The Court however cannot entertain the Greek Government's submission
No. 5. Apart from any other consideration, it is certain that the Court is
not entitled to oblige the Belgian Government � and still less the Company
which is not before it � to enter into negotiations with the Greek
Government with a view to a friendly arrangement regarding the execution of
the arbitral awards which that Government recognizes to be binding:
negotiations of this kind depend entirely upon the will of the parties
concerned. It is scarcely necessary to add that, if the Court cannot invite
the Greek Government and the Societe commerciale de Belgique to agree upon
an arrangement corresponding to the budgetary and monetary capacity of the
debtor, still less can it indicate the bases for such an arrangement.
Submission No. 6 must therefore also be rejected.
[73] Nor could submission No. 4 of the Greek Government be entertained if it
were regarded as a plea in defence designed to obtain from the Court a
declaration in law to the effect [p178] that the Greek Government is
justified, owing to force majeure, in not executing the awards as
formulated. For it is clear that the Court could only make such a
declaration after having itself verified that the alleged financial
situation really exists and after having ascertained the effect which the
execution of the awards in full would have on that situation; in fact, the
Parties are in agreement that the question of Greece's capacity to pay is
outside the scope of the proceedings before the Court.
[74] Nevertheless, though the Court cannot admit the claims of the Greek
Government, it can place on record a declaration which Counsel for the
Belgian Government, speaking on behalf of the Agent for that Government who
was present in Court, made at the end of the oral proceedings. This
declaration was as follows: "If, after the legal situation had been
determined, the Belgian Government should have to deal with the question of
payments, it would have regard to the legitimate interests of the Company,
to the ability of Greece to pay and to the traditional friendship between
the two countries."
[75] This declaration, made after the Greek Government had presented its
final submissions, is in a general way in line with the Greek submissions.
It enables the Court to declare that the two Governments are, in principle,
agreed in contemplating the possibility of negotiations with a view to a
friendly settlement, in which regard would be had, amongst other things, to
Greece's capacity to pay. Such a settlement is highly desirable.
[76] For these reasons,
The Court,
by thirteen votes to two,
1. Admits submission A of the Belgian Government and submission No. 3 of the
Greek Government and, noting the agreement between the Parties, states that
the arbitral awards made on January 3rd and July 25th, 1936, between the
Greek Government and the Societe commerciale de Belgique are definitive and
obligatory;
2. Dismisses the other submissions of the two Parties.
[77] The present judgment has been drawn up in French and English, the
French text being authoritative. [p179]
[78] Done at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this fifteenth day of June, one
thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, in three copies, one of which will be
deposited in the archives of the Court and the others will be communicated
to the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and to the Government of the
Kingdom of Greece, respectively.
(Signed) J. G. Guerrero,
President.
(Signed) J. Lopez Olivan,
Registrar.
[79] Jonkheer van Eysinga and Mr. Hudson, Judges, declare that they are
unable to concur in the judgment given by the Court and, availing themselves
of the right conferred upon them by Article 57 of the Statute, have appended
to the judgment the separate opinions which follow.
(Initialled) J. G. G.
(Initialled) J. L. O. [p180]
Dissenting Opinion by Jonkheer Van Eysinga.
[Translation.]
[80] The present case was brought before the Court by an Application, dated
May 4th, 1938, in which the Belgian Government asked for compensation to be
awarded to the Societe commerciale de Belgique by reason of the alleged
refusal of the Greek Government to execute the arbitral award of July 25th,
1936, under which it was to pay to the said Belgian Company the sum of
6,771,868 gold dollars of the United States of America; this refusal
constituting, according to the Belgian Application, a violation of the
international obligations of Greece. In response, the Greek Government
simply prayed the Court to dismiss the claim.
[81] The fact that the Greek Government, in its Counter-Memorial, departing
from the attitude adopted by it during the negotiations which took place
after the delivery of the award of July 25th, 1936, and prior to the
submission of the Application, acknowledged that the award possessed the
force of res judicata, led the Belgian Government to amend its submissions,
and this amendment, in its turn, led to the amendment of the Greek
submissions.
[82] As a result of this development in the course of the proceedings, the
Court has before it two sets of final submissions each consisting of five
claims asking the Court to "adjudge and declare" in the one case and to
"declare" in the other. On both sides this development of the proceedings
has been accepted, and consequently the Court must adjudicate on the two
sets of submissions as if they had been presented by means of a special
agreement.
[83] However extensive the amendments to the submissions on either side, the
case upon which the Court has to adjudicate remains the same. The Belgian
Government wishes Greece to execute the award of July 25th, 1936 � besides
this award there was another of January 3rd, 1936 � in so far as concerns
the payment of 6,771,868 gold dollars; the Greek Government believes that it
has sound reasons for not doing so; and each Party prays the Court to uphold
the submissions which it presents in order to secure the fullest acceptance
of its contentions.
[84] Final submission A of the Belgian Government is as follows:
"May it please the Court:
A. To adjudge and declare that all the provisions of the arbitral awards
given in favour of the Societe commerciale de [p181] Belgique on January 3rd
and July 25th, 1936, are without reserve definitive and obligatory for the
Greek Government".
[85] Final submission No. 3 of the Greek Government is as follows:
"May it please the Court to declare:
(3) That the Greek Government acknowledges that the arbi�tral awards of
January 3rd and July 25th, 1936, given between itself and the Societe
commerciale de Belgique, have the force of res judicata".
[86] It follows from these two submissions that the Belgian Government and
the Greek Government agree in acknowledging that the awards of 1936 have the
force of res judicata. But it is not enough to accept the two submissions
and "declare" that the awards of 1936 are definitive and obligatory.
[87] For on the one hand the Belgian submission A, the terms of which are
categorical, is followed by submissions B 1, B 2 and B 3, which pray the
Court to adjudge and declare that certain consequences of the awards of
1936, which the Greek Government had sought to evade, are essential. I agree
with the view of the judgment that these submissions are correct, but I
consider that Belgium is entitled to have this recorded in the operative
part of the judgment.
[88] On the other hand, the Greek submission No. 3 which is less categorical
is followed by submissions Nos. 4, 5 and 6, which are linked to submission
No. 3 by a significant "however". Certainly the Greek Government
acknowledges that the awards of 1936 have the force of res judicata, but it
also asks the Court to say that it is materially impossible for it to
execute the awards as formulated (submission No. 4), that negotiations
should be begun for an arrangement corresponding with the budgetary and
monetary capacity of Greece (submission No. 5) and that, in principle, the
fair and equitable basis for such an arrangement is to be found in the
agreements concluded or to be concluded by the Greek Government with the
bondholders of its external public debt (submission No. 6). Greece is also
entitled to have the Court adjudicate on these submissions.
[89] Whereas the final Belgian submissions adopt an exclusively legal
standpoint, the Greek submissions Nos. 4 and 6 take another standpoint. What
the Greek submission No. 4 asks the Court to do is to adjudicate upon the
financial and monetary capacity of Greece, even though the intention of the
Parties at an earlier stage of the proceedings may have been to leave this
question aside. On the basis of the finding asked for by the Greek
submission No. 4 � a finding to the effect that it is materially impossible
for the Greek Government to execute the awards of 1936 as formulated � the
Court, according to [p182] submission No. 5, should leave it to the Greek
Government and the Belgian Company to come to an arrangement which would
correspond with the budgetary and monetary capacity of Greece and which,
according to the Greek submission No. 6, should, in principle, be based on
the agreements already concluded or to be concluded with the bondholders of
the Greek external debt.
[90] The Court no doubt has jurisdiction to entertain submission No. 4. It
is a question of ascertaining a fact: the budgetary and monetary situation
of Greece. The ascertainment of this fact in its turn requires an expert
report, for the Court cannot adjudicate simply on the basis of what the two
Parties � notwithstanding their statements that this question should remain
outside the scope of these proceedings � have put before it regarding the
financial and monetary capacity of Greece. Accordingly the Court should
apply Article 50 of the Statute which provides that it "may, at any time,
entrust any individual, body, bureau, commission or other organization that
it may select, with the task of carrying out an enquiry or giving an expert
report".
Only after such an expert report could the Court adjudicate on Greek
submissions Nos. 4 to 7 and upon Belgian submission C.
(Signed) V. Eysinga.
[p183] Separate Opinion by Mr. Hudson.
[91] While the result which I would reach in this case does not differ
greatly from that reached by the Court, the reasoning which I should adopt
for reaching it differs on some important points from that which the Court
has adopted.
***
[92] In my view, the principal object of the Belgian submissions in their
final form was to obtain from the Court a pronouncement as to the juridical
nature and effect of the arbitral awards of January 3rd and July 25th, 1936.
This is indicated both by the text of the Belgian submissions A and B, and
by the fact that this text embodies modifications which clearly changed the
object sought to be accomplished by the earlier formulations contained in
the written Reply of the Belgian Government. It is confirmed, also, by the
declaration made on behalf of the Belgian Government at the close of the
oral proceedings, in which its final submissions were described as tendant �
voir proclamer le caract�re d�finitif et obligatoire des sentences, sans
aucune r�serve, avec les corollaires que cette d�cision comporte. In other
words, the Belgian Government does not confine itself to asking the Court to
declare that certain matters dealt with in the arbitral awards are now res
judicata and recognized to be such by the Greek Government; it goes further
and seeks a judgment establishing with the Court's authority the obligatory
character of the awards.
[93] It is true that the two arbitral awards given at Paris in 1936 were
souveraines et sans appel. The agreement of the Greek Government and the
Soci�t� commerciale de Belgique to this effect was expressed both in the
contract of August 27th, 1925, and in the compromis of August 30th, 1934.
Yet this agreement did not preclude the Belgian Government, which has
espoused the claim of the Soci�t� commerciale de Belgique, from asking for
an examination and confirmation of the awards by this Court. That is what,
it seems to me, the Belgian Government has done.
[94] The Court's jurisdiction to deal with these Belgian submissions follows
from the consent of the Greek Government. For the Greek Government has not
only refrained from objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court; it has also
asked for the rejection of the Belgian submissions on the merits. See the
Upper Silesia Minorities Case, Series A, No. 15, pages 24-25. [p184]
[95] Even on this interpretation of their principal object, however, the
Belgian submissions ought to be dismissed. The arbitration which led to the
awards of January 3rd and July 25th, 1936, was between the Greek Government
and the Soci�t� commerciale de Belgique; it was held in pursuance of a
provision in the contract of August 27th, 1925, concluded between the Greek
Government and the Soci�t� commerciale DC Belgium. Hence, it is quite clear
that the juridical character of the two awards is not derived from the law
which governs the relations of States. As was said in the Serbian Loans
Case, Series A, Nos. 20/21, page 41, "any contract which is not a contract
between States in their capacity as subjects of international law is based
on the municipal law of some country". The contract of 1925 and the arbitral
awards of 1936 are governed not by international law but by national law,
and the national law applicable to them is that of Greece. See the Serbian
Loans Case, Series A, Nos. 20/21, pages 41-44; the Brazilian Loans Case,
id., pages 121-122. This being true, it would seem that if the Court
undertook to pronounce upon the legal character and effect of the two
arbitral awards, it would have to apply Greek law.
[96] This phase of the case has not been presented to the Court by the
Parties. No indications have been furnished to the Court as to the relevant
provisions of the applicable Greek law, either with respect to the arbitral
clause in the contract or with respect to the awards handed down in
execution of that arbitral clause. Nor has the Court been supplied with
information which would enable it to determine whether the procedure
followed by the arbitral commission at Paris was that prescribed by the law
applicable. Under these circumstances, I think the Court is not called upon
to undertake a research to find the Greek law applicable. Where
international law is to be applied, the Court should not hesitate to go
beyond the presentation by the parties before it, and it must conduct
whatever research may be necessary for finding the applicable law. Where
municipal law is to be applied, a party which asks for relief should furnish
to the Court the materials necessary for its finding the applicable law; and
where as in this case no such materials are furnished to the Court, it would
seem that the Court is not obliged to institute the research necessary for
that purpose, that on the contrary it is free to deny the relief sought
without instituting such a research.
[97] This precise situation would seem to have been envisaged by the Court
in the Brazilian Loans Case in 1929, when it said, Series A, Nos. 20/21,
page 124: [p185]
"Though bound to apply municipal law when circumstances so require, the
Court, which is a tribunal of international law, and which, in this
capacity, is deemed itself to know what this law is, is not obliged also to
know the municipal law of the various countries. All that can be said in
this respect is that the Court may possibly be obliged to obtain knowledge
regarding the municipal law which has to be applied. And this it must do,
either by means of evidence furnished it by the parties or by means of any
researches which the Court may think fit to undertake or to cause to be
undertaken. "
[98] Additional reasons would seem to call for the dismissal of two parts of
the Belgian submission B.
[99] By its submission B, 2, the Belgian Government asks the Court to say
that the conditions adopted for the settlement of the Greek external debt
are and must remain foreign to the execution of the arbitral awards of 1936.
Certainly the Court should not attempt to prescribe for the future in this
way; such action might hamper the future negotiations which both Parties
regard to be necessary.
[100] The Belgian submission B, 3, seems to refer to an attitude alleged to
have been taken up by the Greek Government at some time in the past; at any
rate, the submission is susceptible of this construction. In my opinion, the
premise that the Greek Government had at some time sought to "impose"
certain conditions on the Company or on the Belgian Government, has not been
established before the Court, and for this reason, as well as for others,
the submission should be dismissed.
***
[101] On the Greek side, submissions (5) and (6) should be dismissed on the
ground that no legal basis exists for the invitation to which submission (5)
refers. The Court may have power in some circumstances to invite two States
represented before it to engage in negotiations with a view to the
settlement of their dispute. In my opinion, it would not be justified in
this case in requiring such negotiations to be undertaken by the Belgian and
Greek Governments, nor in laying down the basis for such negotiations as
desired by the Greek Government.
[102] Submission (4) of the Greek Government gives more difficulty. Though
it was doubtless presented partly for the purpose of laying a foundation for
submissions (5) and (6), I cannot say that such was its only purpose.
[103] In the first place, the text of submission (4) may be regarded as
formulating a reservation to the Greek Government's recognition of the
principle of res judicata in connection with the arbitral awards of 1936.
Indeed, in the Greek submission (3) of May 17th, this formulation was
avowedly put as a reservation [p186] to the Greek Government's recognition
of the application of that principle; and the same meaning seems to be
carried in submission (4) of May 19th by the word toutefois. On this
interpretation, submission (4) would raise a question as to the legal effect
of the budgetary and monetary situation of Greece - a question which was
discussed at length by Counsel for the Greek Government in his presentation
of the exception of force majeure; in my judgment that question would call
for an examination of the municipal law applicable. On this interpretation,
submission (4), like the Belgian submissions, would have to be dismissed.
[104] Another possible interpretation of submission (4) would be that the
Court is simply called upon to determine, as a fact, that on account of the
budgetary and monetary situation of Greece, it is materially impossible for
the Greek Government to carry out the arbitral awards according to their
terms. In the written Rejoinder and in the earlier part of the oral
proceedings, it was stated that the Greek Government did not ask the Court
to deal with the question of Greece's capacity to pay; that Government was
free to change its intention in this regard, however. On this
interpretation, submission (4) would have the effect of raising the question
of Greece's capacity to pay. I think the submission, thus interpreted,
should be dismissed for want of proof of the alleged impossibility. Most of
the statistics presented to the Court pertain to the budgetary and monetary
situation of Greece at an earlier period, and they relate only indirectly to
the situation as it now exists. The Court is not asked to order an enquiry
by experts, and the proofs furnished do not seem to me to call for that
course to be taken.
[105] Emphasis is placed by the Greek Government's submission {4) upon the
precise terms of the arbitral awards. The award of July 25th, 1936, fixed
the sum to be paid by the Greek Government to the Soci�t� commercial DC
Belgique; it provided for interest at the rate of 5 % from August 1st, 1936,
but it did not otherwise provide for any period of time within which the
Greek Government was to make payment of the sum due. In the declaration made
on behalf of the Belgian Government on May 19th, it was said that the
Belgian Government had never intended to demand a single payment in full of
the sum due, the inference being that it does not so intend now. This being
the case, it would seem to be unnecessary to enquire into the Greek
Government's capacity to make a single payment in full of the sum due; to
this extent, submission (4), viewed as a request for a finding of fact,
ceased to have any object after the Belgian declaration. [p187]
[106] As to submission (3) of the Greek Government, I agree that the Court
may take note of the Greek Government's recognition of the principle of res
judicata as applied to the two arbitral awards of 1936, but I think that in
admitting submission (3) the operative part of the judgment should not go
further than this.
(Signed) Manley O. Hudson. [p188]
Annex.
Documents Submitted to the Court.
I. � Documents filed on behalf of the Belgian Government.
A. � In the course of the written proceedings:
1. Letters from the Greek Minister for For. Aff. to the Belgian Minister in
Athens, dated September 21st and October 31st, 1933.
2. Letter from the Societe commerciale de Belgique to the Greek Ministers of
Communications and Finance, dated December 30th, 1933.
3. Letter from the Belgian Minister in Athens to the Greek Foreign Minister,
dated April 30th, 1934.
4. Minutes of the meeting of the Arbitration Commission, July 11th, 1934.
5. Letter from the Greek Ministry of Communications to the Company, dated
September 11th, 1934.
6. Special Agreement for Arbitration of August 30th, 1934.
7. Arbitral Award of January 3rd, 1936.
8. Arbitral Award of July 25th, 1936.
9. Letter from the Company to the Greek Ministers of Finance and
Communications, dated August 3rd, 1936.
10. Emergency Law sub No. 361 � 1936.
11. Letter from the Company to the Greek Minister of Finance, dated
September 19th, 1936.
12. Letter from the Greek Ministry of Finance to the Societe nationale de
Credit a l�Industrie, Brussels, dated September 29th, 1936.
13. Letter from the Company to the Greek Minister of Finance, dated
September 15th, 1936.
14. Note verbale from the Belgian Minister in Athens to the Greek Ministry
for For. Aff., dated December 11th, 1936.
15. Letter from the delegates of the Company to the Greek Minister of
Finance, dated December 21st, 1936.
16. Note from the Greek Government to the delegates of the Company, dated
December 31st, 1936.
17. Letter from the delegates of the Company to the Greek Minister of
Finance, dated January 5th, 1937.
18. Letter from the Company to the Greek Minister of Finance, dated May
21st, 1937.
19. Letter from the Belgian Minister in Athens to the President of the
Council of Ministers of Greece, dated June 14th, 1937.
20. Letter from the Greek Ministry for For. Aff. to the Belgian Minister in
Athens, dated June 28th, 1937.
21. Letter from the Belgian Minister in Athens to the President of the
Council of Ministers of Greece, dated July 12th, 1937.
22. Letter from the Belgian Minister in Athens to the President of the
Council of Ministers of Greece, dated August 9th, 1937.
23. Letter from the Societe nationale de Credit a l'Industrie, Brussels, to
the Greek Ministry of Finance, dated October 20th, 1936.
24. Note verbale from the Greek Ministry for For. Aff. to the Belgian
Minister
in Athens, dated September 6th, 1937.
25. Note verbale from the Greek Ministry for For. Aff. to the Belgian
Minister
in Athens, dated September 6th, 1937. [p189]
26. Note verbale from the Belgian Minister in Athens to the Greek Ministry
for For. Aff., dated December 22nd, 1937.
27. Note verbale from the Greek Ministry for For. Aff. to the Belgian
Minister in Athens, dated February 17th, 1938.
28. Extract from the report of the Third Expert, July 11th, 1936
(Compensation claimed by the Government � Damages for failure to carry out
programme completely).
29. Extract from the report of the Third Expert, July 11th, 1936
(Compensation claimed by the Government � Damages for delay).
30. Opinion of the Third Expert, March 20th, 1936, concerning penalties
imposed on the Company for delay in delivery of rolling-stock.
31. Note handed by the Belgian Minister in Athens to the Greek Minister for
For. Aff., February 21st, 1927.
32. Some characteristics of the conventions concluded by the Greek
Government between 1924 and 1926 for the carrying out and financing of
public works.
33. Extract from the report of the Third Expert, July nth, 1936
(Compensation claimed by the Company � Opinion on the merits).
34. Extract from the Messager d'Athenes of October 6th, 1938: "A country
at work."
35. Extracts from the account of the work of the International Financial
Commission for the year 1937.
36. Messager d'Athenes of November 7th, 8th and 9th, 1937. � Extracts from
the speech of M. Metaxas at Patras.
37. Extract from the Messager d'Athenes, August 3rd, 1938: "The work of
August 4th, illustrated by figures."
38. Messager d'Athenes of August 4th, 1938. � Extract from the message of
the head of the Government to the Hellenic people.
B. � In the course of the oral proceedings:
� Convention of August 27th, 1925, between the Greek Government and the
Societe commerciale de Belgique, and Additional Agreements.
II. � Documents filed on behalf of the Greek Government.
A. � In the course of the written proceedings:
1. Railway map of the Kingdom of Greece showing the lines covered by the
Convention of August 27th, 1925.
2. Extracts from the Convention of August 27th, 1925, concerning the cost of
the work to be carried out by the Company.
3. Extracts from conventions and agreements as regards the nature of the
gold loan.
4. Agreement concluded between the Greek Government and bond-bearers of its
external debt (Sept. 1932 � in English, with French translation).
5. Agreement of. November 1933 (in English, with French translation).
6. Agreement of August 1936 (in English, with French translation).
7. Holding of the Bank of Greece in gold and foreign currency.
8. Report of the Financial Committee to the Council of the League of
Nations, June 30th, 1933 (doc. of the L. N. C. 387. M. 194 � 1933. II. A).
B. � In the course of the oral proceedings:
1. Communication from the Council of Foreign Bondholders and from the League
Loans Committee, published in the London Press on March 2nd, 1939 (in
English and French).
2. Budget of the Greek State (years 1936-1937, 1937-1938, 1938-1939).
3. [p190] Remittances from Greek emigrants abroad (years 1930, 1932, 1936,
1937, 1938).
4. Service of the Foreign Public Debt (years 1936-1937, 1937-1938,
1938-1939).
5. Extraordinary expenditure on national defence (apart from ordinary
expenditure) (years 1935-1936 to 1939-1940).
6. Percentage of consumption of cereals covered by home produce (years
1936-1938).
7. Sums paid for imported cereals (years 1936, 1937).
8. Holdings of the Bank of Greece in gold and foreign currency (years
I933-I938).
9. Bank of Greece: statistics of the holdings of the Bank and of currency
circulation (years 1936-1938).
10. Deficit in the balance of payments (years 1936-1938).
11. Index of economic activity (years 1928, 1932-1938).
12. Index of quotations on the Athens stock-market (years 1928-1938).
13. Cost of living index for forty-four towns of Greece (years 1931-1939).
|
|
