Nista onda preuzima stafetu njegov prvi srodnikchupacabra wrote:'bem ti drzavu koja je spala na Sakiba. Sta cemo ako se Sakibu gluho bilo sta desi. Ako recimo fasuje srcani ili nesto.
To da će živjeti zajedno je sigurno 100% samo je pitanje u kojoj državi želiš da živiš i prosperiraš! Mene samo borba za BiH interesuje, nikakva Velika Srbija i Hrvatska !!!triiksa wrote:Kako god se ovo završilo, bošnjaci će živjeti sa srbima i hrvatima a ne sa amerikancima/njemcima/turcima jbg. Pojednostavljeno, džaba dobiješ set kad se meč igra beskonačno. Barem nikad dosadno nije...dogtag wrote:Ivanić nema ništa u ruci i zato maše otvorenom kovertom, totalno nebitnim stvarima. Vidi se sva sprpska nespremnost i zatečenost svim ovim događanjima oko revizije, odnosno njihov potpuni debakl!!!
Mislim da su ovde Amerkanci totalno u ofanzivi i da je ovo njihova operacija 100%, naravno sa našim lobijem u Americi koji su u ovome odavno aktivno učestvovao ta finasirao i osmislio. Domaći političari i njihovi poslušnici mislim da ne bi dorasli jednom ovakvom ozbiljnom projektu!
Ali to je samo moje mišljenje!
Znaci trebaju njih dvojca da dostave dokumentaciju koja suprotno govori od onoga sto softic ili?House wrote:mladen i crnadak u pismu navode "former-bivši", a ne sud u hagu.
Evo šta smatra Enis Omerović, stručnjak za medunarodno pravo:Awakened wrote:Znaci, sva se prica svodi na to da li je u ocima suda revizija potpuno novi proces ili nastavak originalnog. Srbi kazu prvo, Bosnjaci drugo. Sud je zbunjen jer prima oprecne informacije od politicara i trazi pojasnjenje da moze donijeti pravnu odluku.
Naravno da je sudu/pravu sporno kada iz jedne te iste drzave, najvisih drzavnih organa, dolaze oprecna tumacenja. Da se nisu ona dva levata javljala, pisama ne bi ni bilo. Ivanic nema zakonskih argumenata, Bakir ce poslati punomoc Softica, a Covic kakav je, moglo bi se desiti da u pismu iskaze drugacije misljenje nego sto to javno radi. Lukav je on i vidi da mu surovanje sa Srbima ponovo nista konkretno nece donijeti. Po ko zna koji put ...Duka Dizel wrote:Ne znam zašto bi sud slao pisma u kojima traži objašnjenje statusa Sakiba Softića, ako ništa nije sporno.dudevitz wrote:
Pojedinačni odgovori ništa ne znače.
Sporno nije, već je zbrka nastala zbog pisama koja su nelegalno Ivanić i Crnadak slali ispred institucija BiH, a da se nikoga nije pitalo.
Ovo što je Ivanić naveo u svom pismu koje bi trebalo sutra otputovati, a o čemu je govorio na konferenciji, već je iznio u prethodnom pismu koje je poslao, tako da je ovo copy - paste bez ikakve argumentacije i dokaza.
Ono što je činjenica jeste da Sakib Softić ima punomoć da zastupa BiH i Sud će dobiti dokaz o tome.
E sad, zašto se predstavnici srpskog naroda u BiH nisu 10 godina unazad bavili pitanjem punomoći dodijeljene gospodinu Softiću i zašto nisu učinili nešto l e g a l n o da je ukinu, ja nemam odgovor. Vjerovatno su mislili kako su svi zaboravili na mogućnost revizije presude.
Pogotovo, ne znam zašto bi slao na tri adrese.
Očigledno traže neku vrstu glasanja.
To isto je i Čović juče rekao.
Sara03 wrote:Evo šta smatra Enis Omerović, stručnjak za medunarodno pravo:Awakened wrote:Znaci, sva se prica svodi na to da li je u ocima suda revizija potpuno novi proces ili nastavak originalnog. Srbi kazu prvo, Bosnjaci drugo. Sud je zbunjen jer prima oprecne informacije od politicara i trazi pojasnjenje da moze donijeti pravnu odluku.
"Ne radi se o pokretanju novog postupka, već o reviziji ranije donesene presude."
Sud za sada nista ne sumnja. Dolaze oprecna misljenja najvisih drzavnih organa, iz jedne te iste drzave. Kada im mali Alijin posalje punomoc, fino objasni sta je zapravo u pitanju, ko i zasto ovo radi, sud ce to shvatiti kao obicno politikanstvo jedne strane u ovom slucaju. Dok Covic moze izraziti totalno drugacije misljenje od onog u javnosti.It_is_a_Leclerc wrote:Sud ipak sumnja i traži pojašnjenje vezano za Softićev legitimitet. Mnogi ovdje su se dva dana kleli u sve i svašta da je to neupitno i jasno kao dan.
Šta će biti ako dva od tri člana Predsjedništva ospore legitimitet Sakiba Softića? To su već pitanja kojima su se, umjesto na divanima u vijećnici, trebali baviti godinama prije isteka roka.
Ima vise alternativa, pravno sud nema nikakvih argumenata da odbije tuzbu izuzev iz nekih politickih razloga. Medjutim Bosnjacibosanci imaju jos dosta alternativa. Imaju pravo u licno ime svih ostecenih sa predstavnicima neke najbolje expertne organizacije pravnika i drugih tuze Srbiju i RS i zahtjevaju novi proces sada u svoje licno ime i tu ih nijedan medjunarodni sud ne moze odbiti. Slijedeca varijanta i najopasnija za Srbiju i RS je da svi osteceni uzmu pravo i pravdu u svoje ruke i ganjaju privatno duzne do sudnjeg dana.arzuhal wrote:Nevezano sad za konkretnu priču i detalje jel' revizija "nastavak ranijeg procesa" ili "je sasvim novi i odvojeni proces",
nevezano sad za to da li će Sud, na osnovu Odluke iz 2002. godine, potvrditi da je Sakib Softić legitimni agent BiH ili će reći da se njegov legitimitet stvarno završava presudom iz 2007. godine pa će tražiti novu odluku Predsjedništva BiH (protiv čega odmah imamo srpsku stranu), ali....Ovo hoću da kažem, odnosno da se upitam...
Jel' postoje presude Haškog tribunala da su pripadnici (tada takozvane) VRS i tzv. MUP-a RS-a počinile genocid u Srebrenici? Postoje.
Jel' MSP u Hagu uvažavao presude Haškog tribunala? Jest.
Jel Sud potvrdio povezanost RS-a i Srbije, odnosno VRS-a i Vojske SR Jugoslavije, pa je baš zbog toga i presudio da je - iako nije kriva i nema dokaza za direktnu odgovornost i izvršenje - Srbija iapk kriva za nesprečavanje genocida jer nije učinila sve što je mogla da to zaustavi, iako su pravi izvođači radova na terenu bili VRS i MUP RS? Jest.
Jel' zna Sud da je Dejtonom omogućeno strani - Republici Srpskoj - koja je počinila genocid u BiH (isti onaj genocid kojeg je taj Sud pottvrdio svojom ranijom presudom) da se i ona, inače i za sva pitanja, pita za sve što se radi u ime BiH? Zna.
Jel' zna da se ona pita ili se može pitati i kada je pitanje pokretanja revizije presude za genocid, da možda može spriječiti, iz svojih razloga, reviziju? Zna.
E sad...Ako Sud TO ne bude imao u vidu,
odnosno ako pređe preko toga (iz ne znam kakvih proceduralnih razloga) i prihvati da onaj koji je počinio genocid ima snagu i pravo da ospori zahtjev one strane nad kojom je počinjen genocid i to uzme za razlog da odbije Sakiba kao agenta (bilo odmah sad, bilo da traži očitovanje sva tri člana Predsjedništva BiH, pa kasnije nekad uvaži srpsku stranu koja će to proglasiti vitalnim nacionalnim interesom, i to bude razlog odbacivanja Sakiba kao agenta, te time i same revizije),
i dopusti da zbog zahtjeva srpske strane ne bude prihvaćena revizija,
onda ja kažem da taj Sud i nije trebao i ne treba da razmatra reviziju presude,
da nema nikakvog smisla ni da, kao takav, postoji
niti da se zove sudom
niti da ima veze s pravdom...Niti da ikada ikome više sudi izašta...
Sud traži: "that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not18. By a letter dated 9 June 1999, the then Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Mr. Zivko Radisić, informed the Court of the appointment of a Co-Agent,
Mr. Svetozar Miletić. By a letter dated 10 June 1999, the thus appointed Co-Agent informed the
Court that Bosnia and Herzegovina wished to discontinue the case. By a letter of 14 June 1999, the
Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina asserted that the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina had
taken no action to appoint a Co-Agent or to terminate the proceedings before the Court. By a letter
of 15 June 1999, the Agent of the FRY stated that his Government accepted the discontinuance of
the proceedings. By a letter of 21 June 1999, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina reiterated that
the Presidency had not made any decision to discontinue the proceedings and transmitted to the
Court letters from two members of the Presidency, including the new Chairman of the Presidency,
confirming that no such decision had been made.
19. By letters dated 30 June 1999 and 2 September 1999, the President of the Court
requested the Chairman of the Presidency to clarify the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina
regarding the pendency of the case. By a letter dated 3 September 1999, the Agent of the FRY
submitted certain observations on this matter, concluding that there was an agreement between the
Parties to discontinue the case. By a letter dated 15 September 1999, the Chairman of the
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina informed the Court that at its 58th session held on
8 September 1999, the Presidency had concluded that: (i) the Presidency “did not make a decision
to discontinue legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice”; (ii) the Presidency “did
not make a decision to name a Co-Agent in this case”; (iii) the Presidency would “inform [the
Court] timely about any further decisions concerning this case”.
20. By a letter of 20 September 1999, the President of the Court informed the Parties that the
Court intended to schedule hearings in the case beginning in the latter part of February 2000 and
requested the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to confirm that Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s position was that the case should so proceed. By a letter of 4 October 1999, the
Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed that the position of his Government was that the case
should proceed and he requested the Court to set a date for the beginning of the oral proceedings as
soon as possible. By a letter dated 10 October 1999, the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina from the Republika Srpska informed the Court that the letter of 15 September 1999
from the Chairman of the Presidency was “without legal effects” inter alia because the National
Assembly of the Republika Srpska, acting pursuant to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
had declared the decision of 15 September “destructive of a vital interest” of the Republika Srpska.
On 22 October 1999, the President informed the Parties that, having regard to the correspondence
received on this matter, the Court had decided not to hold hearings in the case in February 2000.
21. By a letter dated 23 March 2000 transmitting to the Court a letter dated 20 March 2000
from the Chairman of the Presidency, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina reaffirmed that the
appointment of a Co-Agent by the former Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
on 9 June 1999 lacked any legal basis and that the communications of the Co-Agent did not reflect
the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further, the Agent asserted that, contrary to the claims of
the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Republic of Srpska, the letter of
15 September 1999 was not subject to the veto mechanism contained in the Constitution of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. The Agent requested the Court to set a date for oral proceedings at its earliest
convenience.
23. By a letter dated 29 September 2000, Mr. Svetozar Miletić, who had purportedly been
appointed Co-Agent on 9 June 1999 by the then Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, reiterated his position that the case had been discontinued. By a letter dated
6 October 2000, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that this letter and the recent
communication from the Agent of the FRY had not altered the commitment of the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue the proceedings.
24. By letters dated 16 October 2000 from the President of the Court and from the Registrar,
the Parties were informed that, at its meeting of 10 October 2000, the Court, having examined all
the correspondence received on this question, had found that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not
demonstrated its will to withdraw the Application in an unequivocal manner. The Court had thus
concluded that there had been no discontinuance of the case by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Consequently, in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules, the Court, after having consulted the
Parties, would, at an appropriate time, fix a date for the opening of the oral proceedings.
I tako siluju moj naroddobojlija81 wrote:drugarice ućiteljice oni stalno otvaraju moja pisma
Evo šta kaže Tibor Varadi:Sara03 wrote:Evo šta smatra Enis Omerović, stručnjak za medunarodno pravo:Awakened wrote:Znaci, sva se prica svodi na to da li je u ocima suda revizija potpuno novi proces ili nastavak originalnog. Srbi kazu prvo, Bosnjaci drugo. Sud je zbunjen jer prima oprecne informacije od politicara i trazi pojasnjenje da moze donijeti pravnu odluku.
"Ne radi se o pokretanju novog postupka, već o reviziji ranije donesene presude."
Ako je vako onda samo Srbi moraju da ulože žalbu kao protivljenje i propade protutužba.Haris.ba wrote:Međunarodni sud u Hagu za stranke ima države (ima naravno izuzetaka, ne mogu se sjetiti statusa npr. Palestine,).
Kada se Povelja UN pisala (a i danas je tako) države u međunarodnim odnosima su predstavljali pojedinci (monarhi, predsjednici ili premijeri). Mi smo kao i u svemu specijalan slučaj. Mi imamo specijalan ustav koji predsjedništvu kao kolektivnom organu daje ogromne ovlasti u predstavljanju države prema vani. A nemamo zakona koji bi direktno uređivao vanjsku politiku da spriječi slučajeve gdje članovi predsjeništva samostalno pišu pisma organu UN.
I zamislite Sud koji dobije različita pisma iz iste države od dva člana predsjedništva i jedno od ministra vanjskih poslova.
A da se ne zaboravi, i kao mali prilog raspravi:Sud traži: "that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not18. By a letter dated 9 June 1999, the then Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Mr. Zivko Radisić, informed the Court of the appointment of a Co-Agent,
Mr. Svetozar Miletić. By a letter dated 10 June 1999, the thus appointed Co-Agent informed the
Court that Bosnia and Herzegovina wished to discontinue the case. By a letter of 14 June 1999, the
Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina asserted that the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina had
taken no action to appoint a Co-Agent or to terminate the proceedings before the Court. By a letter
of 15 June 1999, the Agent of the FRY stated that his Government accepted the discontinuance of
the proceedings. By a letter of 21 June 1999, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina reiterated that
the Presidency had not made any decision to discontinue the proceedings and transmitted to the
Court letters from two members of the Presidency, including the new Chairman of the Presidency,
confirming that no such decision had been made.
19. By letters dated 30 June 1999 and 2 September 1999, the President of the Court
requested the Chairman of the Presidency to clarify the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina
regarding the pendency of the case. By a letter dated 3 September 1999, the Agent of the FRY
submitted certain observations on this matter, concluding that there was an agreement between the
Parties to discontinue the case. By a letter dated 15 September 1999, the Chairman of the
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina informed the Court that at its 58th session held on
8 September 1999, the Presidency had concluded that: (i) the Presidency “did not make a decision
to discontinue legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice”; (ii) the Presidency “did
not make a decision to name a Co-Agent in this case”; (iii) the Presidency would “inform [the
Court] timely about any further decisions concerning this case”.
20. By a letter of 20 September 1999, the President of the Court informed the Parties that the
Court intended to schedule hearings in the case beginning in the latter part of February 2000 and
requested the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to confirm that Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s position was that the case should so proceed. By a letter of 4 October 1999, the
Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed that the position of his Government was that the case
should proceed and he requested the Court to set a date for the beginning of the oral proceedings as
soon as possible. By a letter dated 10 October 1999, the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina from the Republika Srpska informed the Court that the letter of 15 September 1999
from the Chairman of the Presidency was “without legal effects” inter alia because the National
Assembly of the Republika Srpska, acting pursuant to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
had declared the decision of 15 September “destructive of a vital interest” of the Republika Srpska.
On 22 October 1999, the President informed the Parties that, having regard to the correspondence
received on this matter, the Court had decided not to hold hearings in the case in February 2000.
21. By a letter dated 23 March 2000 transmitting to the Court a letter dated 20 March 2000
from the Chairman of the Presidency, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina reaffirmed that the
appointment of a Co-Agent by the former Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
on 9 June 1999 lacked any legal basis and that the communications of the Co-Agent did not reflect
the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further, the Agent asserted that, contrary to the claims of
the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Republic of Srpska, the letter of
15 September 1999 was not subject to the veto mechanism contained in the Constitution of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. The Agent requested the Court to set a date for oral proceedings at its earliest
convenience.
23. By a letter dated 29 September 2000, Mr. Svetozar Miletić, who had purportedly been
appointed Co-Agent on 9 June 1999 by the then Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, reiterated his position that the case had been discontinued. By a letter dated
6 October 2000, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that this letter and the recent
communication from the Agent of the FRY had not altered the commitment of the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue the proceedings.
24. By letters dated 16 October 2000 from the President of the Court and from the Registrar,
the Parties were informed that, at its meeting of 10 October 2000, the Court, having examined all
the correspondence received on this question, had found that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not
demonstrated its will to withdraw the Application in an unequivocal manner. The Court had thus
concluded that there had been no discontinuance of the case by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Consequently, in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules, the Court, after having consulted the
Parties, would, at an appropriate time, fix a date for the opening of the oral proceedings.
demonstrated its will to withdraw the Application in an unequivocal manner. "
Naravno, na Sudu je da odluči da li je potrebna nova punomoć agentu.
Ne samo oni nego i Bosnjackobosanski expertni pravni tim!Haris.ba wrote:Međunarodni sud u Hagu za stranke ima države (ima naravno izuzetaka, ne mogu se sjetiti statusa npr. Palestine,).
Kada se Povelja UN pisala (a i danas je tako) države u međunarodnim odnosima su predstavljali pojedinci (monarhi, predsjednici ili premijeri). Mi smo kao i u svemu specijalan slučaj. Mi imamo specijalan ustav koji predsjedništvu kao kolektivnom organu daje ogromne ovlasti u predstavljanju države prema vani. A nemamo zakona koji bi direktno uređivao vanjsku politiku da spriječi slučajeve gdje članovi predsjeništva samostalno pišu pisma organu UN.
I zamislite Sud koji dobije različita pisma iz iste države od dva člana predsjedništva i jedno od ministra vanjskih poslova.
A da se ne zaboravi, i kao mali prilog raspravi:Sud traži: "that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not18. By a letter dated 9 June 1999, the then Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Mr. Zivko Radisić, informed the Court of the appointment of a Co-Agent,
Mr. Svetozar Miletić. By a letter dated 10 June 1999, the thus appointed Co-Agent informed the
Court that Bosnia and Herzegovina wished to discontinue the case. By a letter of 14 June 1999, the
Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina asserted that the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina had
taken no action to appoint a Co-Agent or to terminate the proceedings before the Court. By a letter
of 15 June 1999, the Agent of the FRY stated that his Government accepted the discontinuance of
the proceedings. By a letter of 21 June 1999, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina reiterated that
the Presidency had not made any decision to discontinue the proceedings and transmitted to the
Court letters from two members of the Presidency, including the new Chairman of the Presidency,
confirming that no such decision had been made.
19. By letters dated 30 June 1999 and 2 September 1999, the President of the Court
requested the Chairman of the Presidency to clarify the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina
regarding the pendency of the case. By a letter dated 3 September 1999, the Agent of the FRY
submitted certain observations on this matter, concluding that there was an agreement between the
Parties to discontinue the case. By a letter dated 15 September 1999, the Chairman of the
Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina informed the Court that at its 58th session held on
8 September 1999, the Presidency had concluded that: (i) the Presidency “did not make a decision
to discontinue legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice”; (ii) the Presidency “did
not make a decision to name a Co-Agent in this case”; (iii) the Presidency would “inform [the
Court] timely about any further decisions concerning this case”.
20. By a letter of 20 September 1999, the President of the Court informed the Parties that the
Court intended to schedule hearings in the case beginning in the latter part of February 2000 and
requested the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to confirm that Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s position was that the case should so proceed. By a letter of 4 October 1999, the
Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed that the position of his Government was that the case
should proceed and he requested the Court to set a date for the beginning of the oral proceedings as
soon as possible. By a letter dated 10 October 1999, the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina from the Republika Srpska informed the Court that the letter of 15 September 1999
from the Chairman of the Presidency was “without legal effects” inter alia because the National
Assembly of the Republika Srpska, acting pursuant to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
had declared the decision of 15 September “destructive of a vital interest” of the Republika Srpska.
On 22 October 1999, the President informed the Parties that, having regard to the correspondence
received on this matter, the Court had decided not to hold hearings in the case in February 2000.
21. By a letter dated 23 March 2000 transmitting to the Court a letter dated 20 March 2000
from the Chairman of the Presidency, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina reaffirmed that the
appointment of a Co-Agent by the former Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
on 9 June 1999 lacked any legal basis and that the communications of the Co-Agent did not reflect
the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further, the Agent asserted that, contrary to the claims of
the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Republic of Srpska, the letter of
15 September 1999 was not subject to the veto mechanism contained in the Constitution of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. The Agent requested the Court to set a date for oral proceedings at its earliest
convenience.
23. By a letter dated 29 September 2000, Mr. Svetozar Miletić, who had purportedly been
appointed Co-Agent on 9 June 1999 by the then Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, reiterated his position that the case had been discontinued. By a letter dated
6 October 2000, the Agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that this letter and the recent
communication from the Agent of the FRY had not altered the commitment of the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue the proceedings.
24. By letters dated 16 October 2000 from the President of the Court and from the Registrar,
the Parties were informed that, at its meeting of 10 October 2000, the Court, having examined all
the correspondence received on this question, had found that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not
demonstrated its will to withdraw the Application in an unequivocal manner. The Court had thus
concluded that there had been no discontinuance of the case by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Consequently, in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules, the Court, after having consulted the
Parties, would, at an appropriate time, fix a date for the opening of the oral proceedings.
demonstrated its will to withdraw the Application in an unequivocal manner. "
Naravno, na Sudu je da odluči da li je potrebna nova punomoć agentu.
dragan.s wrote:Oko moje lijepo, pogledaj šta sam MSP kaže o tome._dreamer_ wrote:
Oci moje lijepe, revizija nije novi slucaj, nego vanredni pravni lijek koji se odnosi na onaj isti pravni spor za koji je Sakib Softic opunomocen.
http://www.icj-cij.org/publications/en/manuel_en.pdfInterpretation and revision of a judgment are proceedings formally distinct from the initial case.
Sud će odlučiti da li to bitno, tj. smatra da da li je potrebna nova punomoć agenta.sinuhe wrote:@Haris.ba Tu je cijelo vrijeme bio aktivan postupak iz 1993. Danas nema nikakvog postupka.
Član 61 Statuta Suda je škrt. Potrebno je samo gledati praksu Suda. I ona je škrta. I dosada mislim da nisu imali ovakav sličan slučaj.Article 44
1. For the service of all notices upon persons other than the agents, counsel, and advocates, the Court shall apply direct to the government of the state upon whose territory the notice has to be served.
2. The same provision shall apply whenever steps are to be taken to procure evidence on the spot.
Sud će djelovati u vezi agenta po:Article 61
1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.
2. The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.
3. The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision.
4. The application for revision must be made at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact.
5. No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.
I naravno po praksi Suda. A ja ne znam je li bilo druge slične prakse da se šalju pisma sa različitim sadržajima iz iste države (osim iz BiH).Article 42
1. The parties shall be represented by agents.
2. They may have the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.
3. The agents, counsel, and advocates of parties before the Court shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.
Naravno.Haris.ba wrote: . Sud će odlučiti.
a mladjo bi radije da izglasaju novu punomoc.House wrote:fino bake kaže: hajde da sazovemo sjednicu predsjedništva i osporimo legitimitet sakiba softića.a mladen ni mukajet