Links

Site search
Document search
Contact

The Court

History
Members of the Court
Presidency
Chambers and Committees
Judges ad hoc
How the Court Works
Financial Assistance to Parties
Annual Reports

The Registry

Registrar
Organizational Chart of the Registry
Texts governing the Registry
Library of the Court
Employment
University traineeship program
Internships
Procurement

Cases

List of All Cases
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders

Basic Documents

Charter of the United Nations
Statute of the Court
Rules of Court
Practice Directions
Other Texts

Jurisdiction

Contentious Jurisdiction
Advisory Jurisdiction

Press Room

Press releases
Calendar
Media Services
Multimedia
Frequently Asked Questions

Practical Information

Directions
Visits
Links
Frequently Asked Questions

Publications

Introduction

Permanent Court of International Justice

Series A: Collection of Judgments (1923-1930)
Series B: Collection of Advisory Opinions (1923-1930)
Series A/B: Collection of Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions (from 1931)
Series C: Acts and documents relating to Judgments and Advisory Opinions given by the Court / Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents
Series D: Acts and Documents concerning the organization of the Court
Series E: Annual Reports
Series F: General Indexes
Other documents


Français

Judgment No.2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Request for Advisory Opinion)

Overview of the case

In April 2010, the Court received a request for an advisory opinion from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (“IFAD”), a specialized agency of the United Nations, concerning a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (“ILOAT”) rendered on 3 February 2010. In its judgment, the Tribunal had ordered IFAD to pay a former staff member of the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification — which is housed by IFAD — monetary compensation equivalent to two years’ salary, as well as moral damages and costs, on account of the abolishment of her post and refusal to renew her contract.

In its Advisory Opinion rendered on 1 February 2012, the Court first considered whether it had jurisdiction to reply to the request and whether or not it should exercise that jurisdiction in the case in question. With respect to its jurisdiction, the Court, citing its earlier opinions, recalled that its power to review a judgment of the ILOAT by reference to Article XII of the Annex to the Statute of the ILOAT was limited to two grounds : either the Tribunal had wrongly confirmed its jurisdiction or the decision was vitiated by a fundamental fault in the procedure followed. As for whether or not it should reply to the request for an opinion, the Court drew attention to the difficulties arising from the review process in respect of ILOAT judgments, both in terms of equality of access to the Court and equality in the proceedings before the Court, since only the body employing the staff member has access to the Court. It found, in particular, that the principle of equality, which follows from the requirements of good administration of justice, should now be understood as including access on an equal basis to available appellate or similar remedies unless an exception may be justified on objective and reasonable grounds. Although the review system in place at the time did not appear effectively to satisfy the modern principle of equality of access to courts and tribunals, the Court, which is not in a position to reform this system, concluded that it need not refuse to reply to the request on such grounds. Furthermore, in accordance with the practice followed in previous review requests, the Court sought to alleviate the unequal position before it of the employing institution and its official arising from provisions of the Court’s Statute by deciding that the President of the Fund was to transmit to it any statement setting forth the views of Ms Saez García which she might wish to bring to the attention of the Court, and by deciding that no oral proceedings would be held (since the Court’s Statute does not allow individuals to appear in hearings in such cases). The Court thus ruled on these various points, maintaining its concern regarding the inequality of access to the Court but considering nevertheless that, taking account of the circumstances of the case as a whole, and in particular the steps it had taken to reduce the inequality in the proceedings before it, that the reasons that could have led it to decline to give an advisory opinion were not sufficiently compelling as to require it to do so.

As regards the merits of the request, the Court examined and confirmed the validity of the judgment rendered by ILOAT relating to Ms Saez García’s contract of employment. In particular, the Court was asked to give its opinion on the competence of the ILOAT to hear the complaint brought against the Fund by Ms Saez García. The former argued that Ms Saez García was a staff member of the Global Mechanism, which was not an organ of the Fund, and consequently that its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal did not extend to the applicant’s complaint. On this point, the Court ruled that Ms Saez García was an official of the Fund and that the Tribunal was therefore competent ratione personae to consider her complaint. Moreover, it considered that Ms Saez García’s complaints fell within the category of allegations of non-observance of her terms of appointment or of the provisions of the staff regulations and rules of the Fund, as prescribed by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Having concluded that the Tribunal was justified in confirming its jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae, the Court considered that it need not reply to the other questions raised by the Fund, either because they sought to ascertain the Court’s opinion on the reasoning of the Tribunal or on its judgment on the merits, in respect of which the Court has no power of review, or because they constituted nothing more than a repetition of the question on jurisdiction, which the Court had already answered.


This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Request for Advisory Opinion

Request for Advisory Opinion

26 April 2010
Request for Advisory Opinion
Available in:
English French

Documents transmitted to the Court by the International Fund for Agricultural Development

26 August 2010
Documents transmitted to the Court by the International Fund for Agricultural Development
Available in:
English French

Written proceedings

Orders

Order of 24 January 2011

Extension of time-limits
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Advisory opinions

Summaries of Advisory Opinions and Orders

Summary 2012/1

Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012
Available in:
English French

Press releases

Press release 2010/14

11 May 2010
The International Fund for Agricultural Development requests an advisory opinion from the Court on a judgment rendered by the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization
Available in:
English French

Press release 2011/3

28 January 2011
Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a complaint filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Extension of time-limits for the submission of written comments
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/2

25 January 2012
Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a complaint filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court to deliver its Advisory Opinion on Wednesday 1 February 2012 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/6

1 February 2012
The Court finds that the decision given by the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization in its Judgment No. 2867 is valid
Available in:
English French