Gallery

Danzig-Polish Post Office Dispute 1925

"(d) The interpretation of the expression ‘directly' (‘directement’ — ‘unmittelber’) 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 28^th, 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 4^th, 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, however, was given only in regard to certain questions submitted by the parties and therefore is binding only in so far as the said questions are concerned.

But it is Danzig’s further contention that it is both the right and the duty of the High Commissioner, as an official of the League of Nations, under the protection of which the Free City is placed, to examine, on his own initiative and independently of the parties, the situation both in point of fact and of law, and to decide any dispute, either patent or latent, which may have come to his notice. The true meaning of his decisions should therefore be determined having regard to these functions of the High Commissioner.

The Court cannot regard this contention as well founded. It has already been stated that the general principle laid down in

Danzig-Polish Post Office Dispute, Seite 21.