Menu JTA Search

Hague Court Registry Describes Proceedings in Mavrommatis Case

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The proceedings of the Permanent Court of International Justice in its hearing of the case on the Jerusalem electrification concession was described in a statement issued today by the Registry of the Court.

The Permanent Court of International Justice met this morning, Saturday, September 10th, to hear the further statements of the representatives of the British and Greek Governments in regard to the question of jurisdiction raised in the case of the readaptation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, the statement declared.

In opening the sitting, the President called on Mr. Purchase, Counsel for the Greek Government to speak, Mr. Purchase in his speech submitted a number of observations bearing upon points of English law with a view to refuting the arguments of the British representative in regard to the same points.

When Mr. Purchase had concluded his remarks. Sir Douglas Hoagg, Counsel for the British Government rose to reply. In the first place, Sir Douglas Hogg said that he regretted that the representative of the Greek Government had on the previous day led the discussion into a domain which did not exclusively relate to the question of jurisdiction, with which question the Court was solely concerned at the present session. In his subsequent remarks. Sir Douglas Hogg endeavored to bring the discussion back to the question of jurisdiction. He then sought to refute certain arguments set out by his opponent relating chiefly to alleged breaches of the obligations of the British Government towards M. Mavrommatis.

In conclusion, the representative of the British Government summarizing his argument, emphasized the following points: There might be a breach of contract, but in no case was there a breach of an international obligation. Consequently, the Courts of Palestine alone had jurisdiction; Even admitting, for the sake of argument, that it was a question of the breach of an international obligation, that breach would not be one committed in the exercise of the powers of public control provided for in Article II of the Mandate, and that was the only case in which the Court was given jurisdiction.

As the representatives of the Greek Government did not wish to make any rejoinder, the hearing was declared closed.

NEXT STORY