Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Nicaragua filed Application to institute proceedings against Colombia - ICJ

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua filed an Application to institute proceedings against Colombia regarding a "dispute concerning zones declared by the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia to implement these violations."

In its Application, Nicaragua requested that the Court rule that Colombia had violated a number of its international obligations and that it was obligated to make full reparation for the harm caused by its international wrongdoing.

Nicaragua based the Court's jurisdiction on Article XXXI of the Bogotá Pact. It further argued, "[m]oreover and alternatively, [that] the jurisdiction of the Court [lay] in its inherent authority to determine the actions required by its Judgments."

On December 19, 2014, Colombia filed preliminary objections to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court rendered its decision on Colombia's preliminary objections on March 17, 2016. Based on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, the Court determined that it had the authority to adjudicate the dispute regarding the alleged violations by Colombia of Nicaragua's rights in the maritime zones that, according to Nicaragua, the Court declared in its 19 November 2012 ruling belong to Nicaragua.

Colombia submitted four counterclaims in its Counter-Memorial on November 17, 2016. The first was based on Nicaragua's alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment of the southwestern Caribbean Sea; the second was based on Nicaragua's alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect the right of the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago to enjoy a healthy, sound, and sustainable environment; and the third was based on Nicaragua's alleged violation of the artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants.

In an Order on the aforementioned counterclaims issued on 15 November 2017, the Court determined that the first and second counterclaims submitted by Colombia were inadmissible as such and did not form part of the ongoing proceedings, while the third and fourth counterclaims submitted by Colombia were admissible as such and did form part of the ongoing proceedings.

Between 20 September and 1 October 2021, hybrid-style public hearings on the merits of the case were held.

The Court rendered its decision on the merits on 21 April 2022, finding that Colombia had violated Nicaragua's sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the latter's exclusive economic zone.

D.D :- 21 April 2022

Nicaragua V/S Colombia

Latest Legal News