مجموعة ٣/١٥(١) "مصر. إلغاء الامتيازات في مؤتمر واتفاقية مونترو ١٩٣٧" [ظ‎‎٣‎٠‎٤] (١٢٢٠/٦١٣)

c t , nf the Mixed Courts and attempts by the Egyptian del™,
remainder of th |.' lf ® ti Ministry of Justice power to encroach upon this control
tion to give the Egypt “ d at y the conference. The Egyptians had given n 0
had to be constantly t^ ^ direction during the preliminary discussions in
indication ot tneir & f nce was successful in maintaining the independent
Cairo in January, i , d p art icular attention is called in this connexion
control of the Court °f Appeal W iq ^ and 5? of the R 0 j Much o[ the ,
to articles 1, « (last P K ^ pea i i n these matters is exercised through the
control of the MixedCouvt ot^App ^ drawn up by the Mixed Court of
Reglement general jv ian decree . Article 57 provides that the actual
and made executory y gyp except to the extent that its provisions are
Reglement general continue^ m^torce as follows: _
inconsistent with the ,, A
“Toute modification audit Reglement proposee par 1 Assemblee
o-pneralede la cour ne sera rendue exdcutoire que si el e est promulguee par
fn dtoet surla proposition du Mimstre de la Justice.
• -c * o ^mrjrnm^e arrived at after a difficult discussion in a
This text was m fi |‘' t ld f P or modifications of the existing Reglement general
sub-committee, it pro\i , court in agreement with
to be made in ^V^^Mch has to propose to the Government the Egyptian
the Ministry of Justice executory. The article does not in terms say
decree to make the new g , \ R cv ptian decree unless they have been
that modifications cannot be ™ ad , e n P y the view of all the foreign
proposed b y * he ^ ed ? 0 u aving provided one method by which the reglement
delegations that the text, ^ , Heemed to exclude any other and it was
could be altered, must by imp ic Governments would take if any other
made clear that this ,s the view that their C-ove r nmento won n ^
course but that prescribed ffiion to their Parliament,
course.
(e) Disputes.
101. Article 13 of the convention provides for submission^dispu^
arisino- out of the interpretation or application ^ f t ^the
Permanent Court of International Justice upon ,f? a PP\ 1 C 0 M° ap Mie S P to disputes
dispute. The sub-paragraph of this article (which in Y PP ubst ; tu tion
between the United States of America and Egypt) provides tor me
of another tribunal in certain cases. , • nnt bv us privately
102. This important guarantee arose of a suggestion put by^ d ed ^ their
to the Egyptian delegation which they readily acceptec < ^ otoco i
original draft convention. The article would cover the ^ the
as well as the convention. It is doubtful, however, if it co\er c y
takings in the Final Act.
pertain Points.
V.—More Detailed Explanation of the Negotiation of b
(a) The Position of Egyptian Companies Ineorporated j byK 0 ™ 9
after the Commencement of the Transitiona Q delegab 011
103. This point is dealt with here because it is one on ; n pocume^ A'
failed to obtain at Montreux the full measure of what was se ^ obtained
As indicated above there are a number of other points on wnic achieved
than was contained in Document A; in all cases this re su a i ar ge
because the United Kingdom delegation supported the
proportion of them in isolation. . . TQT 111 o r v their d eSire
104. The Egyptians made known in the discussions m Mixed C° urtS i
to abolish the principle of “mixed interest” un ^ er . lt 7 nnn ot pr esC1 ^ e i
by their jurisprudence, had attracted to themselves a junsoic c omn ierC ! a
in terms by the existing R.O.J. with the result that virtually . j n Cair°
business of Egypt came before the Mixed Courts. In the dis rt to ^
the representatives of His Majesty’s Government refused a . r ^ aI1 t asp eCts
Egyptian demand except on the conditions that the two mos F