Galerie

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