Gallery

 

The council's request - Advisory Opinion No. II - Danzig.

other and are clearly based upon a restrictive conception of the Polish postal service.
This may be so. If General Haking had felt himself constrained to give a decision upon the points now at issue, he very possibly would have settled them in conformity with Danzig\'s contention. This, however, does not import that these points can be considered as having been decided.

***

On January 4th, 1923, the President of the Senate of the Free City made an application to the High Commissioner for a decision upon Poland's claim that her postal service extended over the whole of the town of Danzig, a claim which the Senate regarded as unjustified. The High Commissioner, on January 6th, transmitted a copy of the application to the Commissioner-General of Poland at Danzig with a covering letter in which he said that, in his opinion, no decision was necessary, as it clearly appeared from the decision already given that Poland had no right to establish a postal service extending outside the building assigned for the purpose.
There is a difference of opinion between the Parties as to whether the decision referred to in the High Commissioner's letter was the decision of May 25th, 1922, as Danzig contends, or the decision of December 23rd, 1922, as contended by Poland.
The Court is of opinion that this point is not material for the present purpose, because the letter in question cannot be regarded as, and by its very terms was not intended to be, a decision. From what has already been said with regard to the judicial functions : of the High Commissioner, it follows that he cannot give a decision, within the meaning of Article 39 of the Paris Convention, unless the essentials of a judicial procedure have been complied with. Now, a so called authentic interpretation of a judicial decision is in effect a new decision; therefore, the Court is unable to recognize that the letter of the High Commissioner of January 6th, 1923, constituted an interpretation of this kind, as understood by Danzig. It merely expressed the persona1 oplnion of General Haking, an opinion which, as the Court has already stated, cannot alter the proper meaning of a decision.

Nor is it possible to agree with Danzig's contention that the Polish Government have accepted the view expressed in the High

The council's request - Advisory Opinion No. II, page 31.