Mavrommatis Case 5o2639

Digest Author: Clarisse Osteria

Public International Law

D2016

Mavrommatis Case (Greece v. Britain) (1924) Mm. Loder (President of the Permanent Court of International Justice) FACTS:  Mavrommatis, a Greek national, was in 1914 granted concessions by the Ottoman authorities for certain public works in what later became the British mandated territory of Palestine. The concessions were related to constructions and working of electric tramway systems and supply of light power and electric power in Jerusalem and Jaffa, as well as irrigation systems.  Mavrommatis tried to claim from the concessions granted via ordinary channels, but such claims were unheeded. Britain refused to recognize Mavrommatis’ rights. o Ordinary channels resorted to by Mavrommatis: In long correspondence, Mavrommatis and his solicitors urged his rights with respect to these concessions in the British Colonial Office. He also got friends to write privately to persons in the British Foreign Office upon the subject.  The dispute was initially between a private person (Mavrommatis) and a State (Britain).  Greece took up Mavrommatis’ case because the latter is a Greek subject. Greece filed a case before the PCIJ, alleging that Great Britain, through the Palestine Government, had refused to recognize the concession in Jerusalem and Jaffa, principally by having granted to a Mr. Rutenberg concessions partially overlapping those enjoyed by Mavrommatis, and accordingly sought compensation.  Britain imposed its preliminary objection and argued that Greece had no standing in this case.  Greece argued that it is entitled to protect its subjects such as Mavrommatis when they have been injured by acts contrary to international law by another state. ISSUES + RULING: Was there a dispute? YES.  A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons.  There is a dispute because Greece is asserting its own rights by claiming from Britain indemnity on the ground that Mavrommatis, one of its subjects, has been treated by Palestine or British authorities in a manner incompatible with certain international obligations which they were bound to observe. o Art 26 of the Mandate of Palestine (legal document which formalized the creation of 2 British protectorates – Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan; took effect in 1923, following the ratification of The Treaty of Lausanne) provides that the dispute must be between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations. Although at first, the dispute was between a private person (Mavrommatis) and a State (Britain), the Greek government took up the case. The dispute entered into a new phase; it entered the domain of international law, and became a dispute between the 2 States.  The dispute could not, in the circumstances of the case, be settled by negotiation. o For the case to come under PCIJ jurisdiction, it must be that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation. o The Court recognized that the State does not substitute itself for the subject; it is asserting its own rights and, consequently, factors foreign to the previous discussions between the individual and the competent authorities may enter into the diplomatic negotiations. But it recognized that the character of the dispute may render unnecessary the renewed discussion on opposing contentions from which the original dispute arose. It is a matter of consideration in each case. o The Court said that it isn’t necessary to have lengthy correspondences to prove that negotiation can no longer be had. In the case, it looked at the correspondences which evidenced the unwillingness of the British government to negotiate and meet the claims of Mavrommatis.

Digest Author: Clarisse Osteria

Public International Law

D2016

“The Court realises to the full the importance of the rule laying down that only disputes which cannot be settled by negotiation should be brought before it. It recognises, in fact, that before a dispute can be made the subject of an action at law, its subject matter should have been clearly defined by means of diplomatic negotiations. Nevertheless, in applying this rule, the Court cannot disregard, amongst other considerations, the views of the States concerned, who are in the best position to judge as to political reasons which may prevent the settlement of a given dispute by diplomatic negotiation. When negotiations between the private person and the authorities have already -as in the present case -defined all the points at issue between the two Governments, it would be incompatible with the flexibility which should characterise international relations to require the two Governments to reopen a discussion which has in fact already taken place and on which they rely.” Although Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 which formed the Peace Treaty with Turkey, contained provisions expressly relating to the recognition of concessions in Palestine but without recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction in cases of dispute, it complemented the mandate and did not render inoperative its jurisdictional clauses. o



Did PCIJ have jurisdiction over the case? YES.  Dispute was between States (Greece and Britain)  Case cannot be negotiated (see above)  The Mandate for Palestine provided for the court’s jurisdiction: “It must in the first place be ed that at the time when the opposing views of the two Governments took definite shape (April 1924), and at the time when proceedings were instituted, the Mandate for Palestine was in force. The Court is of opinion that, in cases of doubt, jurisdiction based on an international agreement embraces all disputes referred to it after its establishment. In the present case, this interpretation appears to be indicated by the of Article 26 itself where it is laid down that "any dispute whatsoever .... which may arise" shall be submitted to the Court.”  The Rutenberg concessions, which is covered by the Mandate, is said to be the alleged breach of the concessions of Mavrommatis: “If the grant of the Rutenberg Concessions, in so far as they may be regarded as incompatible, at least in part, with those of Mavrommatis, constitutes the alleged breach of the of the Mandate, this breach, no matter on what date it was first committed, still subsists, and the provisions of the Mandate are therefore applicable to it.” Did Greece have the standing to bring the present claim in the capacity of sole claimant? YES.  A State like Greece can take up the case of its subjects when they are injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another State from who said subject had been unable to obtain satisfaction through ordinary channels. The dispute is now a dispute in international law. o This is founded on Greece’s right to ensure respect for rules of international law, a right which in this case appears to have been violated by Britain. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on its behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights – its right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respects for the rules of international law. o It should not be looked at not as a substitution between Greece and its subject, but as assertion of its own rights as a State. This will lead to the conclusion that Greece is the sole claimant in this case. o Greece has the right to ensure respect for rules of international law. It is not substituting itself with the citizen, but is actually asserting its own rights. o The court deemed as irrelevant whether the dispute originated from a personal injury or not. Once a State has taken up a case on behalf of one of its subjects before an international tribunal, in the yes of the latter the State is sole claimant. The fact that Great Britain and Greece are the opposing Parties to the dispute arising out of the Mavrommatis concessions is sufficient to make it a dispute between 2 States is sufficient to make it a dispute between 2 States within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Palestine Mandate.

Digest Author: Clarisse Osteria

Public International Law

D2016

DISPOSITION: On a 7-5 vote, Court held that it had jurisdiction in the Jerusalem concessions, but not in the Jaffa concessions.