As noted above, Catherine Etezadi has resided long periods in Iran and has been married to an Iranian citizen since 1955. She was issued an Iranian identity card in 1955 and Iranian passports in 1962 and 1969. While travelling to and from Iran she used her Iranian passport; however, this fact does not necessarily indicate that she was more closely attached to Iran than to the United States.5 Catherine Etezadi states that she has had no blood relatives in Iran since 1974, when she and her family left the country.
[W]hatever observations the Court may have made on [the Applicants' legal right or interest], it remained for the Applicants, on the merits, to establish that they had this right or interest in the carrying out of the provisions which they invoked, such as to entitle them to the pronouncements and declarations they were seeking from the Court. Since decisions of an interlocutory character cannot pre-judge questions of merits, there can be no contradiction between a decision allowing that the Applicants had the capacity to invoke the jurisdictional clause--this being the only question which, so far as this point goes, the Court was then called upon to decide, or could decide,--and a decision that the Applicants have not established the legal basis of their claim on the merits.
THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) The Claim of the Claimant HOOSHANG ETEZADI is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Article II, paragraph 1 and Article VII, paragraph 1 of the Claims Settlement Declaration.
(b) The Claimant CATHERINE ETEZADI has standing before this Tribunal under Article II, paragraph 1 and Article VII, paragraph 1 of the Claims Settlement Declaration.
(c) The remaining jurisdictional issues are joined to the merits.
Already registered ?