Η ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΧΑΓΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ "ΣΚΟΠΙΑΝΟ"

 
 Με ψήφους 15 υπέρ και 1 κατά το μεσημέρι της Δευτέρας το δικαστήριο αποφάσισε ότι η Ελλάδα παραβίασε το άρθρο 11 της Ενδιάμεσης Συμφωνίας, κάνοντας δεκτή την προσφυγή των Σκοπίων.


Σύμφωνα με την απόφαση του δικαστηρίου, η Ελλάδα παραβίασε το άρθρο 11, παρ. 1 της Ενδιάμεσης Συμφωνίας. Στο σκεπτικό της απόφασης επισημαίνεται πως η ΠΓΔΜ έχει δικαίωμα να θέτει υποψηφιότητα σε οργανισμούς όπου η επιλογής των μελών γίνεται με ψηφοφορία.

Το μόνο θετικό είναι ότι οι Σκοπιανοί δεν έχουν δικαίωμα να χρησιμοποιούν πουθενά τον Ήλιο της Βεργίνας και άλλα εθνικά σύμβολα της Ελλάδας, σύμφωνα με τους δικαστές. 

Η ανάγνωση του σκεπτικού και της απόφασης του Διεθνούς Δικαστηρίου της Χάγης για τη διαφωνία Ελλάδας-ΠΓΔΜ, όσον αφορά στο ελληνικό βέτο για την ένταξη των Σκοπίων στο ΝΑΤΟ το 2008, διήρκησε περισσότερο από μία ώρα.








Η ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ...


INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ  The Hague, Netherlands 
Tel.:  +31 (0)70 302 2323   Fax:  +31 (0)70 364 9928 
Website:  www.icj-cij.org
Press Release 
Unofficial 
 No. 2011/37 
5 December 2011 
The Court finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia to NATO, has breached its obligation under Article 11, 
paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995
 THE HAGUE, 5 December 2011.  The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal 
judicial organ of the United Nations, today delivered its Judgment in the case concerning 
Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia v. Greece). 
 In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court  
(1) finds, by fourteen votes to two, that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the 
former Yugoslav Republic of  Macedonia on 17 November 2008 and that this Application is 
admissible; 
(2) finds, by fifteen votes to one, that the Hellenic Republic, by objecting to the admission of the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to  NATO, has breached its obligation under 
Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995; 
(3) rejects, by fifteen votes to one, all other submissions made by the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia. 
I. Factual background of the case 
 The Court recalls that, on 17 November 2008, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
(hereinafter the “Applicant”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting 
proceedings against the Hellenic Republic (hereinafter the “Respondent”) in respect of a dispute 
concerning the interpretation and implementation  of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 
(hereinafter the “Interim Accord”).  It further recalls that the Applicant invoked as a basis for the 
Court’s jurisdiction Article 21, paragraph 2, of  the Interim Accord, which states that the Parties 
may submit to the Court any dispute which arises  between them concerning the interpretation or 
implementation of that Accord, except for the difference referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1, of 
that instrument. 
 The Court observes that the Applicant’s NATO candidacy was considered at the Bucharest 
Summit on 2 and 3 April 2008, but that the Applicant was not invited to begin talks on accession to 
the organization.  It notes that the Applicant  is seeking, in particular, to establish that the 
Respondent objected to its admission to NATO and therefore violated Article 11, paragraph 1, of - 2 - 
the Interim Accord.  The Court states that it is  clear from the text of the first clause of that 
provision that the Respondent agrees not to object to the Applicant’s admission to international or 
regional organizations of which the Respondent is a member.  It further observes that, under the 
second clause of that provision, the Respondent nevertheless reserves the right to object to such 
admission if and to the extent the Applicant is to be referred to in those organizations differently 
than in paragraph 2 of United Nations Security Council resolution 817 (1993).  That paragraph 
recommends that the Applicant be admitted to membership in the United Nations, being 
“provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the 
State”. 
II. Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the Application 
 The Court notes that the Respondent claims that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the 
dispute and that the Application is inadmissible for several reasons.  Firstly, the Respondent 
submits that the dispute concerns the difference  over the name of the Applicant.  Secondly, it 
alleges that the dispute concerns conduct attributable to NATO and its member States, which is not 
subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.  Thirdly, it claims that the Court’s Judgment in the present case 
would be incapable of effective application because it could not effect the Applicant’s admission to 
NATO.  Fourthly, it submits that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court would interfere with 
ongoing diplomatic negotiations concerning the difference over the name. 
 The Court decides not to uphold the objections raised by the Respondent;  it finds that it has 
jurisdiction over the dispute and that the Application is admissible. 
III. Whether the Respondent failed to comply with the obligation under Article 11, 
paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord 
 In the view of the Court, the evidence submitted to it demonstrates that, at the Bucharest 
Summit, in contravention of Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord, the Respondent 
manifested its objection to the Applicant’s admission to NATO, citing the fact that the difference 
regarding the Applicant’s name remained unresolved.  The Court finds that the Respondent’s 
objection does not fall within the exception contained in the second clause of Article 11, 
paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord, because that clause does not permit the Respondent to object to 
the Applicant’s admission to an organization based on the prospect that the Applicant is to refer to 
itself in such organization with its constitutional name. 
IV. Additional justifications invoked by the Respondent 
 The Court notes that, as an alternative to its main argument, the Respondent claims that any 
objection to the Applicant’s admission to NATO could be justified (1) under the doctrine of 
exceptio non adimpleti contractus, (2) as a response to a breach of a treaty, or (3) as a 
countermeasure under the law of State responsibility.  The Court observes that the Respondent 
advances certain minimum conditions common  to its arguments relating to these three 
justifications, namely that the Applicant breached provisions of the Interim Accord and that the 
Respondent’s objection to the Applicant’s admission to NATO was made in response to those 
breaches.  In the light of the evidence before it, the Court concludes that the Respondent has 
established only one such breach, namely the use by the Applicant in 2004 of the symbol 
prohibited by Article 7, paragraph 2, which it discontinued during that same year.  The Court 
considers that the Respondent has failed to establish that it objected to the Applicant’s admission to 
NATO in response to a violation of that provision.  Accordingly, it concludes that the justifications 
submitted by the Respondent fail. - 3 - 
V. Remedies 
 In the light of the above, the Court determines that its finding that the Respondent has 
violated its obligation to the Applicant under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord 
constitutes appropriate satisfaction. 
Composition of the Court
 The Court was composed as follows:  President Owada;  Vice-President Tomka;  
Judges Koroma, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov, 
Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue;  Judges ad hoc Roucounas, Vukas;  
Registrar Couvreur. 
 Judge Simma appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court;  Judge Bennouna 
appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court;  Judge Xue appends a dissenting opinion to the 
Judgment of the Court;  Judge ad hoc Roucounas appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of 
the Court;  Judge ad hoc Vukas appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court. 
* 
 A summary of the Judgment appears in the  document “Summary No. 2011/6”.  This press 
release, the summary, and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s website 
(www.icj-cij.org), under the heading “Cases”. 
___________ 
Information Department:
Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336) 
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)  
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)  
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)


ΠΗΓΗ .ΖΟΥΓΚΛΑ

Posted in: ΚΟΣΜΟΣ