Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

295

§ 169.

itself) to allow such ship to pass through and sail out at the other end : and I haye no reason to suppose that the British Government would fail'

?J? py^uti ^ 016 ^ °f itS ob%ati°n; and if a ship enters Suez or Port Said without any intention of going through the canal, or, bang in either of those ports, abandons any intention it may have had of passing through, I am of opinion that she ceases to have any rights

whatever under the convention " 5

Dans le même sens, les décisions du Comité Judiciaire du Conseü Privé dans les affaires des Gutenfels, Barenfels and Derfflinger (324) :

When war broke out on August 4 between Germany and Great Bntain, the vessel was lying in Port Said, not in exércise of a right of passage, but by way of user of the port as a port of refuge. Under these circumstances the Canal Convention had ceased to be operative and she was not entitled to any protection." et des Pindos, Helgoland and Rostock (329). § 169. Dans 1'affaire du navire allemand Sijdmark, n°. 2 (840) le Comité Judiciaire du Conseil Privé avait a statuer sur la défense des réclamants que le navire capturé était demeuré pendant plus de 24 heures en rade de Suez, contrairement aux prescriptions des articles 4 et 6 de la convention de 1888 et que, par conséquent, la prise devait etre relachée. La cour d'appel a rejeté cette défense.

D'abord: „Their Lordships entertained some doubt whether the vessel (m remaimng in the roadstead at Suez for more than twenty-four hours) committed a breach of the Convention", paree qu'on pouvait admettre dans les errconstances de 1'affane „that there was such a case of necessüy or distress as would render the twenty-four hours'rule inappücable."

! : Üju l ^ fact that the Egypte11 Government was de facto controüed by the Government responsible for the breach in question, the fact that neither the Egyptian Government nor the Impérial Ottoman Government intervened would have been sufficiënt proof that the breach (ü any) was purely technical, and did not caü for any action on then part. J

Mais abstraction faite des arguments aJlégués, la cour d'appel déma aux tribunaux de prises le droit de statuer sur les contraventions aux articles 4 et 6, qui ne rentrent pas dans leur compêtence:

„Assunung that m the present case the Egyptian Government or the Impenal Ottoman Government may be looked upon as a neutral Power wnicb has ahowed a prize to remain in one of its ports longer than is warranted by international law or international agreement, their Lordships cannot hold that the Prize Court has on that account any power or duty to release the prize."

Voir aussi § 32.

Sluiten