|III.||The International Court of Justice|
|3.||THE PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE|
(Germany v. United States of America)
Judgment of 27 June 2001
[p. ] 44. Germany asserts that
the Court's Order of 3 March 1999 was intended to "enforce"
the rights enjoyed by Germany under the Vienna Convention
and "preserve those rights pending its decision on
the merits". Germany claims that a dispute as to "whether
the United States were obliged to comply and did comply
with the Order" necessarily arises out of the interpretation
or application of the Convention and thus falls within
the jurisdiction of the Court. Germany argues further
that questions "relating to the non-compliance with
a decision of the Court under Article 41 para. 1 of
the Statute, e.g. Provisional Measures, are
an integral component of the entire original dispute
between the parties".
Moreover, Germany contends that its third submission also implicates "in an auxiliary and subsidiary manner ... the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for claims as closely interrelated with each other as the ones before the Court in the present case".
45. The third submission of Germany concerns issues that arise directly out of the dispute between the Parties before the Court over which the Court has already held that it has jurisdiction (see paragraph 42 above), and which are thus covered by Article I of the Optional Protocol. The Court reaffirms, in this connection, what it said in its Judgment in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, where it declared that in order to consider the dispute in all its aspects, it may also deal with a submission that "is one based on facts subsequent to the filing of the Application, but arising directly out of the question which is the subject-matter of that Application. As such it falls within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction ..." (Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 203, para. 72). Where the Court has jurisdiction to decide a case, it also has jurisdiction to deal with submissions requesting it to determine that an order indicating measures which seeks to preserve the rights of the Parties to this dispute has not been complied with.