had expressly provided for it to have retroactive effect in Protocol number 12. 14. One of the issues that came up for determination in the PsnbsJielos case was on jurisdiction. Two Treaties were concluded between Greece and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One was in 1886 and the other in 1926. Ambatielos' claim was that he had suffered considerable loss as a result of a contractual arrangement he had with the Govermnent of the United Kingdom (UK) in 1919, and also in consequence of certain judicial decisions in the English Courts in co1mection with the said c·ontract. His government, the Hellenic Govenunent on his behalf he being one of its nationals, as was required by the Treaty establishing the PCIJ, took up Ambatielos' case. The Hellenic Government's claim was that in accordance with the 1826 and 1926 Treaties, the matter should be refe1Ted to arbitration. The. UK government, in a preliminary objection; argued that the ' Court lackedjudsdiction to decide on that question. But the Court rejected the preliminary objection by holding that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the UK was under an obligation to submit to arbitration the difference as to the validity of the Ambatielos' claim in so far as it was · based on the Anglo-Hellenic Treaty of 1886. 15. On the applicability of the 1926 Treaty, the Court stated that it was not given retroactive effect. Under Article 29 of the 1926 Treai.-y, either party could submit to .the Court any dispute as to inte1pretation or application of any of the provisions of that Treaty. The Court rejeoted the Hellenic Government's argument that in the 1926 Treaty there were substantive provisions similar to substantive provisions of the 1886 Treaty, so by Article 29 of the 1926 Treaty the Court could adjudicate upon the validity of a claim based on an alleged breach of any of these similar provisions, even if the 5 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm