Gallery

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 ~oGernment against the
decision of December qrd, 1922. On April18th, 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 zyd, 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that the Polish appeal has been expressly withdrawn.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