Galerie

preted became therefore final and binding and is actually in force. i
It remains to be seen whether it covers the points now in dispute.
The decision was given in consequence of submissions made by the
Parties under Article 240 of the Warsaw Agreement of October 24th,
1921, which reserved for the decision of the High Commissioner,
inter alia, the following points relating to the Polish postal
service :
[Translation. l]
\"(d) The interpretation of the expression \'directly\' (directement - anmittelbar) in Article 29 of the Convention.
\"(e) The question of the extent to which the Polish postal
service may operate outside the port of Danzig (Article 29 of
the Convention).
\"(f) The question whether Danzig\'s obligation to provide
land and buildings extends only to the port, or whether Poland
may also claim to obtain such land and buildings outside the
port (Article 30 of the Convention).\"
In February 1922, Poland submitted to the High Commissioner
for his decision points (d) and (f), involving an interpretation of
part of Articles 29 and 30 of the Paris Convention ; in her reply of
February 28th, Danzig added point (e), contending that the Polish
installations outside the port should be confined to assuring the
working of the postal, telegraph and telephone communications
between Poland and the port of Danzig. It is obvious that none
of the questions thus submitted to the High Commissioner refer
to the points now in dispute ; and it is not to be assumed that\'
the decision went beyond those questions. It is true, as Danzig contends in her observations submitted to the Court on May 4th, 1925,
that the High Commissioner in paragraph 2 of his decision stated
that the point in dispute was the interpretation of the first part of
Articles 29 and 30 of the Paris Convention, and, as also contended
by Danzig, that the interpretation given by him in his decision
is binding as between the Parties. This interpretation, howe+er,
l Translation prepared by the Registry. The original German text is reproduced hereafter :
d) über die Auslegung des Begriffs ,,unmittelbar\'\', - ,,directementu - >,direct1yCL - in Artikel 29 der Konvention ;
e) über die Frage, welchen Umfang die polnische Posteinrichtung ausserhalb
des Hafens von Danzig annehmen darf (Artikel 29 der Konvention) ;
f) über die Frage, ob sich die Verpflichtung Danzigs zur Hergabe von Gebauden und Gelande nur auf den Hafen erstreckt, Oder ob Polen solches
ausserhalb des Hafens verlangen kann (Artikel 30 der Konvention).