in connection with the said contract. His government, the Hellenic Governn1ent on his behalf he being one of its nationals, as was required by the Treaty establishing the PCIJ, took up Arnbatielos' case. The Hellenic Gove111ment's clai111 was that in accordance with the 1826 and 1926 Treaties, the matter should be refe11"ed to arbitration. The UK government, in a prelirninmy objection, argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide on that question. But the Court rejected the preliminmy objection by holding that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the UK was under an obligation to submit to arbih·ation 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 reh·oactive effect. Under Article 29 of the 1926 Treaty, either party could submit to the Court any dispute as to interpretation or application of any of the provisions of that Treaty. The Court rejected 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 alleged breach took place wholly before the new Treaty came into force. The Court, having decided that the 1926 Treaty was not given reh·ospective effect, concluded that it was impossible to hold that any of its provisions were deemed to have been in force earlier. I 6. The European Conunission on Human Rights also recognized that this principle of non-reh·ospectivity of stahites and treaties is generally applicable to all intenrntional jurisdictions. This was in the case of De Becker, case No. 214/56 decided on 9 June 1958, see Annual Index Vol. II p. 231. 17. In the instant case Counsel did not say how the Supplementmy Protocol, expressly or impliedly, was given reh·ospective effect. The tlu·ust of their argument 5 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm