Original: French 2013, the interlocutory motion of 28 February 2013, praymg the Court to note the failure by the Respondent to implement the Court Order, the llmotion to institute proceedings~~ of 28 February 2013, and finally the motion for a judgment in default; as well as two orders issued by the Court, on 15 March 2013 and 10 August 2015, respectively. 42 . The Court therefore holds that the first cond ition for the passing of a 11 judgment in default~~ has been met. Not only had al l the pleadings been served on the Respondent, but the latter, while it sent the Court two Notes Verbale in response to the Order of 15 March 2013, consistently failed to present its defence, despite the extension of the deadline accorded . 43 . The Court wi ll therefore proceed to examine compliance with the other requirements of Rule 55 of its Rules to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction and that the application is admissible . V. THE COURT'S JURISDICTION 44. Under Rule 39(1) of its Rules , the Court has to conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction. In that regard , the Court notes that even where the Respondent has not raised preliminary objections to its jurisdiction, the Court should proprio motu, ensure that it has personal (ratione personae), material (ratione materiae ), temporal temporis) and territorial (ratione loci) jurisdiction to hear the case. (ratione