SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

3 October 1899- Arbitral Award: ICJ

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D: 13 JUNE 2022

Regarding the Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 29 March 2018 by the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (hereinafter "Guyana") against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter "Venezuela") in a dispute concerning "the legal validity and binding effect of the Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, dated 3 October 1899", the Court finds that it has jurisdiction.

Regarding the Order dated 19 June 2018, by which the Court held, pursuant to Article 79, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court of 14 April 1978 as amended on 1 February 2001, that, taking into account that Venezuela had informed the Court that, in its view, the Court manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that it had decided not to participate in the proceedings, it was first necessary to determine the Court's jurisdiction, and that this question h

Due to the fact that Venezuela did not file a Counter-Memorial, but on 28 November 2019 it submitted a document titled "Memorandum of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the Application filed before the International Court of Justice by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana on 29 March 2018", the Court finds that Guyana's application is admissible.

Regarding a letter dated 10 February 2020 in which Venezuela stated it had no intention of participating in the oral proceedings on the issue of the Court's jurisdiction,

Regarding the public hearing held on 30 June 2020, during which Guyana presented its oral arguments and submissions on the issue of the Court's jurisdiction,

Having regard to the Judgment dated 18 December 2020, in which the Court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the Application filed by Guyana on 29 March 2018 regarding the validity of the Arbitral Award dated 3 October 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, the Court grants Guyana's Application.

The Court extends the filing deadlines for Guyana's Memorial and Venezuela's Counter-Memorial on the merits from 8 March 2022 to 8 March 2023.

Regarding the Memorial of Guyana submitted within the allotted time,

Regarding a letter dated June 6, 2022 in which H.E. Ms. Delcy Elona Rodrguez Gómez, Executive Vice President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, informed the Court that the Venezuelan Government had appointed H.E.

Venezuela filed preliminary objections to the application's admissibility on 7 June 2022, and a copy of these objections was transmitted to the other party immediately.

Consequently, pursuant to Article 79bis, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court, the merits proceedings are stayed and a deadline must be set for the opposing party to submit a written statement of its observations and arguments regarding the preliminary objections.

In accordance with Practice Direction V, which states that the time limit for the presentation of such a written statement shall generally not exceed four months from the date of the filing of preliminary objections, we hereby extend this time limit to six months.

Sets the date of 7 October 2022 as the deadline for the Co-operative Republic of Guyana to submit a written statement regarding Venezuela's preliminary objections; and

Reserving judgement on the next procedure.

Done in English and French, with the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on this thirteenth day of June, twenty-two, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the Court's archives and the other two of which will be sent to the governments of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, respectively.

Guyana

v/s

Venezuela

Download order

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/guyana-v-venezuela.pdf"]

Latest Legal News