Gallery

Danzig-Polish Post Office Dispute 1925 | den Danzig -- polnischen Poststreit

Poland and 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 25^th, 1922, as Danzig contends or the decision of December 23^rd, 1922, as contended by Poland.

The Court  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 6^th, 1923. constituted an interpretation of this kind, as understood by Danzig. It merely expressed the personal opinion 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 Commissioner’s letter, seeing that they did not object to it. On January 20th, the Commissioner-General of Poland, answering the letter of January 6th, informed the High Commissioner that he considered Danzig’s application to be “hasty” ("premature”) since a 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 24^th, 1921”. 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 negotiations under Article 168.

Danzig-Polish Post Office Dispute, Seite 27.