                     388

                                       DECLARATION OF JUDGE GAJA

                       Premises of a diplomatic mission — Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on
                     Diplomatic Relations — Whether Article 22 covers the issue of ownership of the
                     building.

                       In section (c) of its submissions Equatorial Guinea complains about
                     France’s failure “to recognize the status of the building located at 42 Ave-
                     nue Foch in Paris as the property of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea,
                     and as the premises of its diplomatic mission”. I agree with the Judgment
                     of the Court that the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on
                     Diplomatic Relations gives the Court jurisdiction over the part of the
                     dispute between the Parties relating to the use of the building as premises
                     of the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea. However, the Judgment
                     does not specify that the issue concerning the ownership of the building is
                     not covered by the Optional Protocol.

                       When defining the premises of the diplomatic mission, Article 1 (i) of
                     the Vienna Convention indicates that these are “the buildings or parts of
                     buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used
                     for the purposes of the mission”. Ownership of the premises does not
                     necessarily belong to the sending State. Missions are often located on
                     rented or leased property. Issues concerning the ownership of buildings
                     that are used for a mission are regulated by the municipal law of the host
                     State, unless the matter is governed by a treaty (this case is not relevant
                     for present purposes).

                        When Article 22, paragraph 3, of the Vienna Convention sets out that
                     “[t]he premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property
                     thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from
                     search, requisition, attachment or execution”, it does not grant total
                     immunity to the building. It only refers to forcible measures that interfere
                     with the use of the building for the diplomatic mission.

                       Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention states that “[t]he
                     premises of the mission shall be inviolable”. It does not exclude that the
                     mission should have to move out because of a change in the ownership of
                     the property. The relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention do not
                     imply that, once a building has been used for a diplomatic mission, the
                     sending State is entitled to continue to use it indefinitely for that purpose.
                     Ownership of the premises may change over time. Except for what may
                     be provided for in a treaty, there is no obligation for the receiving State

                     100

5 CIJ1142.indb 196                                                                                21/02/19 15:44

                     389 	     immunities and criminal proceedings (decl. gaja)

                     to let the sending State continue to use a specific building for its mission.
                     Use of the premises will depend on contractual arrangements that the
                     sending State may conclude with the owner. The sale of the property
                     where the premises of a diplomatic mission are located could lawfully
                     lead to terminating the use of the building for that purpose.

                       Thus, the issue of the ownership concerning the building located at
                     42 Avenue Foch must be distinguished from the issue of inviolability and
                     immunity of the premises of the mission. While the latter comes within
                     the scope of the Optional Protocol, the part of the dispute over the own-
                     ership of the building is not so covered. Under the Optional Protocol the
                     Court does not have jurisdiction to decide on that part of the dispute.

                     (Signed) Giorgio Gaja.

                     101

5 CIJ1142.indb 198                                                                                21/02/19 15:44


COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE RELATIVE A L’APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PREVENTION
ET LA REPRESSION DU CRIME DE GENOCIDE

(BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE c. YOUGOSLAVIE)

ORDONNANCE DU 23 JUILLET 1996

1996

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF
THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA vy. YUGOSLAVIA)

ORDER OF 23 JULY 1996
Mode officiel de citation:

Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression
du crime de génocide, ordonnance du 23 juillet 1996,
CLI. Recueil 1996, p. 797

Official citation:

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide, Order of 23 July 1996,
LC J. Reports 1996, p. 797

N° de vente:
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number 68 1
ISBN 92-1-070745-1

797

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 1996

23 July 1996

CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF
THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. YUGOSLAVIA)

ORDER

The President of the International Court of Justice,

Having regard to Article 48 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 31, 44 and 79 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the Application filed in the Registry on 20 March
1993, whereby the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted pro-
ceedings against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of a dis-
pute concerning a series of alleged violations of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948, as well as
various matters which Bosnia and Herzegovina claims are connected
therewith,

Having regard to the Order made by the President of the Court on
16 April 1993, fixing (inter alia) 15 April 1994 as the time-limit for the
filing of the Counter-Memorial of Yugoslavia, and the Orders dated
7 October 1993 and 21 March 1995, whereby that time-limit was suc-
cessively extended to 15 April and then to 30 June 1995,

Having regard to the preliminary objections concerning, respectively,
the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court to
entertain the case, which were raised by the Government of Yugoslavia
within the time-limit fixed for the filmg of the Counter-Memorial, as
finally extended;

1996
23 July
General List
No. 91
APPLICATION OF GENOCIDE CONVENTION (ORDER 23 VIT 96) 798

Whereas the Court, by its Judgment dated 11 July 1996, found that, on
the basis of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punish-
ment of the Crime of Genocide, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
dispute and that the Application is admissible;

Whereas in order to ascertain the views of the Parties on the subse-
quent procedure, the President received their representatives on 23 July
1996,

Fixes 23 July 1997 as the time-limit for the Counter-Memorial of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and
Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-third day of July, one thousand
nine hundred and ninety-six, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Govern-
ment of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Government of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, respectively.

(Signed) Mohammed BEDJAOUI,
President.

(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar.


INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING
FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT
AT LOCKERBIE

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA v. UNITED KINGDOM)

ORDER OF 29 JUNE 1999

1999

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE RELATIVE A DES QUESTIONS
D'INTERPRÉTATION ET D’APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION DE MONTREAL DE 1971
RESULTANT DE L’INCIDENT AERIEN
DE LOCKERBIE

(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE c. ROYAUME-UNI)

ORDONNANCE DU 29 JUIN 1999
Official citation:

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Conven-
tion arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
v. United Kingdom), Order of 29 June 1999, I C.J. Reports 1999,

p. 975

Mode officiel de citation:

Questions d'interprétation et d'application de la convention de Montréal de
1971 résultant de l'incident aérien de Lockerbie (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
c. Royaume-Uni), ordonnance du 29 juin 1999, C.I.J. Recueil 1999,

p. 975

Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 N° de vente: 738

ISBN 92-1-070807-5

29 JUNE 1999

ORDER

QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING
FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT AT LOCKERBIE

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA ». UNITED KINGDOM)

QUESTIONS D’INTERPRETATION ET D’APPLICATION
. DE LA CONVENTION DE MONTREAL DE 1971
RESULTANT DE L’INCIDENT AERIEN DE LOCKERBIE

(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE c. ROYAUME-UNI)

29 JUIN 1999

ORDONNANCE
975

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1999 YEAR 1999
29 June
General List
No. 88 29 June 1999

CASE CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING
FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT
AT LOCKERBIE

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA y. UNITED KINGDOM)

ORDER

Present: Vice-President WEERAMANTRY, Acting President; President
SCHWEBEL ; Judges ODA, BEDJAOUI, GUILLAUME, HERCZEGH, SHI,
FLEISCHHAUER, KOROMA, VERESHCHETIN, PARRA-ARANGUREN,
KOOTHMANS, REZEK; Judges ad hoc Sir Robert JENNINGS,
EL-KOSHERI; Deputy- Registrar ARNALDEZ.

The International Court of Justice,

Composed as above,
After deliberation,

Having regard to Article 48 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 31, 44, 45, 48 and 49 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the Application by the Great Socialist People’s
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, filed in the Registry of the Court on 3 March
1992, instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of a “dispute between Libya and
the United Kingdom concerning the interpretation or application of the

4
976 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION (ORDER 29 VI 99)

Montreal Convention” of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression
of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation,

Having regard to the Order of 19 June 1992, by which the Court fixed
20 December 1993 and 20 June 1995 as the time-limits for the filing,
respectively, of the Memorial of Libya and the Counter-Memorial of the
United Kingdom,

Having regard to the Memorial filed by Libya and the preliminary
objections submitted by the United Kingdom, within the time-limits thus
fixed,

Having regard to the Judgment of 27 February 1998, by which the
Court adjudicated on the preliminary objections,

Having regard to the Order of 30 March 1998, by which the Court
fixed at 30 December 1998 the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-
Memorial of the United Kingdom, and to the Order of 17 December
1998, by which the Senior Judge extended that time-limit to 31 March
1999,

Having regard to the Counter-Memorial filed by the United Kingdom
within the time-limit thus extended;

Whereas, in order to ascertain the views of the Parties on the subse-
quent procedure, the Vice-President of the Court, Acting President, met
their Agents on 28 June 1999; and whereas at that meeting the Agent of
Libya stated that his Government wished to be authorized to submit a
Reply, for the preparation of which it sought a time-limit of twelve
months; whereas the Agent of the United Kingdom stated that his
Government did not oppose Libya’s request but that, in view of the
new circumstances consequent upon the transfer of the two accused to
the Netherlands for trial by a Scottish court, it desired that no date be
fixed at this stage for the filing of a Rejoinder by the United Kingdom;
and whereas the Agent of Libya stated that his Government had no
objection to this;

Taking account of the agreement of the Parties and the special circum-
stances of the case,

Authorizes the submission of a Reply by Libya and a Rejoinder by the
United Kingdom;

Fixes 29 June 2000 as the time-limit for the filing of the Reply of
Libya; and

Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-ninth day of June, one thou-
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine, in three copies, one of which will be
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the

5
977 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION (ORDER 29 VI 99)

Government of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, respectively.

(Signed) Christopher G. WEERAMANTRY,
Vice-President.

(Signed) Jean-Jacques ARNALDEZ,
Deputy-Registrar.