Germany v.

Poland, (Chrozow Factory) 1928

Facts- After the First World War due to a bipartite agreement between Germany and Poland;
Germany agreed to transfer the control of Upper Silesia area to Poland. On an agreement that
Poland would not forfeit any property of Germany, but thereafter Poland forfeited two of
German Companies situated at that area.

Issue- Whether the court has the jurisdiction , whether there is any violation of the
agreement between Germany and Poland and whether there is international obligation on
Poland?

Decision- ICJ has the jurisdiction over the matter. Poland has violated the international
agreement between Germany and Poland. Poland would be liable to repair the loss suffered
by the Germany.

Great Britain v Spain (Spanish zone of Morocco claim)

Facts- On 29 May 1923, Spain and Great Britain concluded an agreement on 35 claims of
British subjects and British protégés against Spain for damage caused between 1913 and
1921 in the Spanish Zone of Morocco ( Compromis ; Protected Persons ; Protectorates and
Protected States ) , mainly as a result of the uprisings of the Kabyle tribes, the Spanish
military operations and the construction of infrastructures. The claims concerned
compensation for the seizure of land, destruction of houses, hedges, gardens and fruit trees,
loss of crops, looting of livestock and goods.

Ireland v. United Kingdom (Mox Case), ICJ 343

Facts- The conflict between Ireland and the United Kingdom about the building and
operation of the Mox Plant at Sellafield, on the Irish Sea, dates back to 1993. Ireland had
commenced proceedings against the United Kingdom in the Arbitral Tribunal provided for by
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the Convention”) to settle a dispute
relating to the MOX nuclear fuels reprocessing plant at Sellafield on the coast of the Irish
Sea.

Decision- The Court (Grand Chamber) ruled in the Commission's favour by holding that
Ireland had disregarded its exclusive jurisdiction. It had already ruled that mixed agreements
have the same status in the Community legal order as purely Community agreements, as
these are provisions coming within the scope of Community competence. Ireland’s breach of
Article 292 also lay in its failure to respect the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to resolve
disputes concerning the interpretation and application of provisions of Community law,
especially as Community law provides for procedures such as the Article 227 procedure for
the purpose of obtaining a declaration that another Member State has breached those
provisions.
Lastly, the Court held that Ireland had breached Article 10 of the Treaty by bringing
proceedings in the Arbitral Tribunal without having first informed and consulted the
competent Community institutions.

Germany v Italy ( Greece Intervening )

Facts- Italian Courts allowed civil claims to be brought against Germany based on violations
of international humanitarian law committed by Germany from 1943 – 1945 against Italian
citizens. Italian courts also permitted the enforcement of a judgement of the Greek courts in
Italy against Germany and took measures of constraint against a German property in Italy.
Did Italy’s actions violate the customary international law right of jurisdictional immunity of
Germany?

Decision- Italy violated its obligation to respect Germany’s immunity under international law
by allowing civil claims to be brought against Germany based on violations of international
humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945, by declaring
enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts and by taking measures of constraint against
German property in Italy.

The Court requested Italy to enact legislation, or resort to other methods of its choosing,
to ensure that the decisions of its courts and those of other judicial authorities infringing the
immunity which Germany enjoys under international law cease to have effect.

Lotus Case

Facts- A collision occurred on the high seas between a French vessel and a Turkish vessel.
Victims were Turkish nationals and the alleged offender was French. Could Turkey exercise
its jurisdiction over this French national under international law?

Decision - Turkey, by instituting criminal proceedings against Demons, did not violate
international law. A State cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory unless an
international treaty or customary law permits it to do so. This is what we called the first
principle of the Lotus Case.

Nicaragua v. United States of America

Facts- The case involved military and paramilitary activities carried out by the United States
against Nicaragua from 1981 to 1984. Nicaragua asked the Court to find that these activities
violated international law.

Decision - The United States violated customary international law in relation to (1), (2), (4)
and (5) above. On (3), the Court found that the United States could not rely on collective self-
defence to justify its use of force against Nicaragua.