Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of written statements

INTERNATIONAL C OURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, :!517 KJ The Hague. Tel . 92 44 41. Cables: Intercourt. The Hague

32323

Communiqué
unofficial
for lmmediate release

No. 84/27

14 September 1984

Application for the review of a judgement delivered
by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal

The following information is communicated to the press by the
Registry of the International Court of Justice:

On 10 September 1984 the Court received a request for advisory
opinion on an administrative issue from an organ of the United Nation::

General Assembly.

The organ in question is the Committee on Applicationsfor Review ~f'
Administrative Tribunal Judgements, which is authorized to ask the Court
for advisory opinion by virtue of Article 96 of the United Nations
Charter.

In nccordance with the procedure laid down by Article 11 of the
Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, the tribunal fnr
the se ttlement of dispu tes be tween the United Nations Secre tory-Genern i
and the staff membera of the organization concerning their conditions 0''
their employment, the Committee may be asked to request an :rdvisory

opinion of the Court in connection with the judgement of the Tribunal L:
a member State. the United Nations Secretary-General, or the staff mernbs,r
in respect of whom the judgement was rendered, disputes the judgement.
If the Committee considers that there is a substüntial busis for tne
request, it brings the matter before the Court. In the present case lt
was the staff member in question who made an application to the Committrr

for review of Judgement No. 733, given by the Administrative Tribunal on
8 June 1984.

The case in question concerned a refusal hy the Secre tary-Generol of'

the United Nations to renew the appointment of a staff rnember of tne
Secretariat beyond the date of expiry of the official's fixed-term
contract, the reasons given for this refusa1 being that the officia1 had
been seconded from :I national administration, tnat his secondment nad
come to an end and tl~at his contract with the United Nations was limitecl
to the duration of the secondment; furthermore, under the specific termn

of the Staff Regu1at:ions for the Secretariat, the type of appointment i.n
question did not entitle the incumbent to expect to be granted a renewal
or a dif ferent type of appointment. The Administrative Tribunal re jected
the staff memher ' s appeal against the Secre tary-General' s refusal.

*
On.. . On 23 August 1984 the Committee decided that there was a substantial

basis for the staff member's application and decided to request the Court
to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:

"(1) In its Judgement No. 333 of 8 June 1984 (AT/DEC/~~~), did
the United Nations Administrative Tribunal fail to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it by not responding to the question whether
a legal impediment existed to the further employment in the

United Nations of the Applicant after the expiry of his contract on
26 December 1983?

(2) Did the United States Administrative Tribunal, in the same
Judgement No. 333, err on questions of law relating to provisions of
the Charter of the United Nations?"

By an Order of 13 September 1984, the President of the Court,
pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, fixed w

14 December 1984 as the time-limit within which written statements might
be submitted by the United Nations and its member States. The subsequent
procedure is reserved for further decision.

When the Court gives its advisory opinion, the Secretary-General
will either give effect to it or request the Administrative Tribunal tn
convene specially in order to confirm its original judgement or to givc
new judgement in conformity with the opinion of the Court.

This is the third time that the Court has been asked for an advi:or.y
opinion by the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative -
Tribunal Judgements. The first case concerned the Application for Hev~t-!h

of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
(1.c.~: Reports 1973, p. 166), regarding which the Court gave its
Advisory Opinion on 12 July 1973. That case related to the question of
indemnity for a former United Nations staff member for non-renewal of hi=
engagement. The second case concerned the Application for the Review
Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
(I.C. J. Reports 1982, p. 325) and led to an Advisory Opinion given on

20 July 1982. This case related to the payment of repatriation grant
a recently retired official.