Asdfgh
Páginas: 3 (618 palabras)
Publicado: 13 de noviembre de 2012
Case outline: Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
1. Has the court jurisdiction to decide on the case?According to its settled jurisprudence, its jurisdiction must be determined at the time that the act instituting proceedings was field. Thus, if the Court has jurisdiction on the date the case isreferred to it, it continues to do so regardless of subsequent events. Furthermore both states was bound by a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction, filed in accordance with Article 36,paragraph 2 of the statute of the court, in the declarations that was made by Belgium and Congo contained no reservation applicable to the case.
2. Is the case now without object and thecourt should accordingly decline to proceed to judgment on the merits of the case?
It has already affirmed on a number of occasions that events occurring subsequent to the filing of anapplication may render the application without object such that the Court is not called upon to give a decision thereon. The change which has occurred in the situation of Mr. Yerodia has not in factput an end to the dispute between the parties and has not deprived the application of its object.
3. Is the application inadmissible if the case as it now stands is materially different tothat set out in the Congo´s Application instituting proceedings?
In accordance whit settled jurisprudence, it cannot, in principle, allow a dispute brought before it by application tobe transformed by amendments in the submissions into another dispute which is different in character. In the case the application have not changed in a way that produced such a transformation in thedispute brought before it.
4. Has the case assumed the character of an action of diplomatic protection but one in which individual being protected has failed to exhaust local remedies?...
1. Has the court jurisdiction to decide on the case?According to its settled jurisprudence, its jurisdiction must be determined at the time that the act instituting proceedings was field. Thus, if the Court has jurisdiction on the date the case isreferred to it, it continues to do so regardless of subsequent events. Furthermore both states was bound by a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction, filed in accordance with Article 36,paragraph 2 of the statute of the court, in the declarations that was made by Belgium and Congo contained no reservation applicable to the case.
2. Is the case now without object and thecourt should accordingly decline to proceed to judgment on the merits of the case?
It has already affirmed on a number of occasions that events occurring subsequent to the filing of anapplication may render the application without object such that the Court is not called upon to give a decision thereon. The change which has occurred in the situation of Mr. Yerodia has not in factput an end to the dispute between the parties and has not deprived the application of its object.
3. Is the application inadmissible if the case as it now stands is materially different tothat set out in the Congo´s Application instituting proceedings?
In accordance whit settled jurisprudence, it cannot, in principle, allow a dispute brought before it by application tobe transformed by amendments in the submissions into another dispute which is different in character. In the case the application have not changed in a way that produced such a transformation in thedispute brought before it.
4. Has the case assumed the character of an action of diplomatic protection but one in which individual being protected has failed to exhaust local remedies?...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.