Gallery

 

The council's request - Advisory Opinion No. II

Poland via the Port of Danzig to countries beyond the sea and "vice versa". On this paragraph Danzig bases her contention that there is a decision to the effect that the use of the Polish postal service is confined to Polish authorities and offices.

An appeal was brought by the Polish Government against the decision of December 23rd, 1922. On April 18th, 1923, an arrangement was made between the Parties on the question decided by the High Commissioner : it is said in the preamble that the representatives of the Parties have agreed "that the decision of the High Commissioner of December 23rd, 1922, is replaced by the  following provisions"; clause 3 of the Agreement, however, says that "this practical settlement of the question does not in any way alter the legal position". It does not appear from the documents that the Polish appeal has been expressly withdrawn.
There has been a great deal of discussion between the Parties, and statements have been made as to the meaning and effect of this arrangement. Poland contends that the decision of December 23rd, 1922, has been entirely replaced by the arrangement and is of no effect. On the other hand, it is Danzig's contention that, by virtue of clause 3, only the operative part of the decision has been replaced.

The Court deems it unnecessary to express an opinion on this point. In the very terms of clause 3 of the Agreement, the reservation made by the Parties refers to the "legal situation" (situation de droit). The maximum concession which could be made to Danzig's contention in this respect is that the decision itself ought to be considered as being in force, except as concems Poland's right to have a letter-sorting office at the main Danzig
Railway Station, a right which it acquired by the Agreement.
If this be so, the decision should be taken as it stands; it is clearly impossible to construe clause 3 of the Agreement as referring to a special part of the decision or as incorporating
any particular opinion expressed therein. The Court therefore, whilst abstaining from expressing a definite opinion on the meaning of the clause in question, assumes, for the purpose of argument, that Danzig might invoke, in the present case, the decision of December 23rd, 1922. Now, it is certain that the reasons contained in a decision, at least in so far as they go beyond the scope of the

The council's request - Advisory Opinion No. II, page 30.