The Inge Toft
| Jurisdiction | Egipto |
| Date | 10 September 1960 |
| Court | Obsolete Court (Egypt) |
(Mohamed Ali Gamal el Dine, President; Mohamed Anwar Abdel Latif, Dr. Ali Sadek Abou Heif, Al Amid Sayad Sayad Gad, Members.)
State territory — International canals — Suez Canal — Rights of United Arab Republic in defence of Suez Canal — Constantinople Convention, 1888 — The law of the United Arab Republic.
War — In general — Non-hostile relations between belligerents — Armistice — Effects of Treaty of Rhodes, 1949, upon war between United Arab Republic and Israel — The law of the United Arab Republic.
War — Termination of — Armistice — Treaty of Rhodes, 1949 — Whether special character of Armistice Agreement can terminate state of war — War between United Arab Republic and Israel — The law of the United Arab Republic.
Warfare at sea — Restrictions on right of capture — Property under neutral flag — Vessel flying neutral flag but owned or controlled by enemy — Whether cargo may be seized — Rights exercisable in time of war — Existence of state of war between United Arab Republic and Israel — Effect of Armistice Agreement — Treaty of Rhodes, 1949 — Visit and search of vessels and cargo in Suez Canal — Constantinople Convention, 1888 — The law of the United Arab Republic.
The Facts.—The Inge Toft was owned by a Danish company, was registered in Denmark, and flew the Danish flag. By a contract entered into at Hamburg and dated March 7, 1959, the ship was chartered for twelve months to Mediterranean Agencies Inc. of New York. The Inge Toft was to be employed on a journey from Haifa (Israel) to the Far East. By a letter dated May 14, 1959, addressed to the captain of the Inge Toft, the charterers informed him that the charterers' representative in the Far East was Gold Star Line of Osaka, and asked him to contact the Far East representative as soon as the Inge Toft left the Suez Canal, so as to receive any further instructions.
Investigations by the United Arab Republic authorities led them to conclude that both Mediterranean Agencies Inc. and Gold Star Line of Osaka were controlled by Israeli concerns.
On May 21, 1959, the Inge Toft arrived at Port Said from Haifa bound for the Far East with a cargo of potash, marble, copper rings, cement, rubber, leather articles and chemical products. She was detained, and the United Arab Republic Customs authorities requested that the cargo be unloaded as being Israeli, and therefore enemy, cargo. The charterers instructed the captain of the Inge Toft to refuse to unload the cargo. The Customs authorities detained the vessel together with its cargo at Port Said until the impasse over the cargo was resolved. On February 3, 1960, the Port Said agents of the owners of the Inge Toft informed the United Arab Republic Customs authorities that the owners consented to the cargo being unloaded. The Customs authorities insisted that the cost of unloading should be borne by the agents (for the owners), and that after the cargo had been unloaded the Inge Toft should only leave Port Said by sailing to the north, and could on no account leave Port Said by sailing to the south (i.e., through the Suez Canal). The cargo was duly unloaded (the owners of the ship protesting at having to bear the cost), and on February 15, 1960, the Inge Toft left Port Said sailing northwards. Proceedings were instituted before the United Arab Republic Prize Court for the seizure of the cargo on the ground that it consisted of enemy goods, notwithstanding that it had been on a vessel flying a neutral flag.
Held: that the seizure of the cargo was lawful. (1) An armistice did not put an end to a state of war; (2) the protection of a neutral flag did not cover the cargo if the vessel was owned or controlled by an enemy State; and (3) the assertion by the United Arab Republic of rights of visit, search, and seizure in the Suez Canal was in conformity with Article 10 of the Constantinople Convention, 1888.
The Court, in the course of setting out the facts, said: “Investigations made in New York by the Consulate General of the United Arab Republic showed that: (a) the name of the Mediterranean Agencies Inc. company was only another name to disguise the Zim Israel-America Lines and Zim Navigation Lines companies. (b) The Jewish Agency owns Zim Israel Navigation of Haifa, which in turn owns Mediterranean Agencies Inc. and Israel-America Lines. (c) The Consul General obtained a copy of the official registration of Mediterranean Agencies Inc. as a subsidiary of the American Israel Shipping Co. Inc. company. (d) The said companies have a single address in New York (Broadway).
“The Gold Star Line of Osaka company, which represents the charterers in the Far East and which gives the necessary instructions for the re-employment of the ship after its service with the company, is also a shipping company in which Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. participates, and the control of the said Gold Star Line of Osaka is in the hands of the Mediterranean Agency of New York.”
After completing its statement of the facts, the Court said: “In the present proceedings the requests have been put forward as follows: 1. On February 21, 1960, the Advocate General presented to the President of the Prize Court a request that the case be submitted to the Court for a decision that the seizure of the above-mentioned cargo was perfectly legal and that the cargo be confiscated to the profit of the State. The Advocate General based his request on the following arguments:—
“(a) Although the Inge Toft belonged to B/S Jutiendia A/S—Toldbodgade, 29, Koben Havn. K. (Copenhagen), and was registered there and in consequence flew a neutral flag, that of Denmark, nevertheless, by reason of the charterparty, the ship had been put in the service of Israeli shipping and had in fact been placed in the power and control of the above-mentioned Israeli shipping companies, and, in particular, of Zim Israel Navigation Company Limited which is an enemy company by reason of its domicile and nationality. As a result, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial