Galerie

 

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

Commissioner's letter, seeing that they did not object to it. On January zoth, the Commissioner-General of Poland, answering the letter of January 6th, informed the High Commissioner that he considered Danzig's application to be "hasty" (firématurée) since the question "had only just begun to be discussed between the postal Administrations of Poland and of Danzig under Article 168 of the Poland-Danzig Agreement of October 24th, I921". Instead of admitting that the question as to the territorial extent of the Polish postal service had been settled by a previous decision of the High Commissioner, Poland very clearly stated that the question had still to be settled and this, in the first place, by means of negotiations under Article 168 of the Warsaw Agreement.

Danzig contends that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Commissioner by Article 240 of the Warsaw Agreement, does not concern any of the points reserved for negotiation under Article 168. If Danzig's contention was correct, the reply of the Polish Commissioner General of January zoth, 1923, would perhaps nothave met the real point at issue. However this may be, the two postal Administrations exchanged in the following months letters dealing with the legal basis of the negotiations to be carried on under Article 168 and the Senate of the Free City seems to have taken no steps before December 1924, in order to obtain a decision on the points raised in their letter of January 4th, 1923, nor to havemade a statement to the effect that it considered these points as already settled by the letter of the High Commissioner.
For these reasons the Court reaches the conclusion that there is no decision of General Haking in force dealing either with the question whether the Polish postal service is restrjcted to operations which can be performed within its premises, or with the question whether its use is confined to Polish authorities and offices. It is therefore unnecessary for the Court to consider whether the existence of a final decision could, and if so, under what circumstances, leave room for reconsideration of these points by the High Commissioner or by the Council of the League of Nations.

The council's request - Advisory Opinion No. II, page 32.