Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
JUDGMENTS OFTHIE ADMINISTRATIVT ERIBUNAL OFTHEILO
UPONCOMPL,AINTM S ADEAGAINSTUNESCO
AdvisoryOpinionof 23 October1956
This advisoryopiniondealt withthe matterof the legal questions tothe International Courtofanusticefor
ments of the Administrative Tribunalof the Iiiteradvisoryopinion:
LabourOrganisation(ILO)uponcomplait~tsmade against "I. Was the Administrative Tribunalcompetent,
the United Nations Educational, Scientificarid CultunderArticlofitsstatuto,hearthe intro-
Organization(Unesco). duced against Unesco on5 Februarv 1.955bv Messrs.
By a Resolutionadoptedon November25th, 1955,the Dukrg hd LeffandMrs.Wilcox, andon28JU&1955by
ExecutiveBoardof Unesco decided tosubmitthefollowiMrs. Bernstein?
Continued on next page "11. InthecaseofanaffirmativeanswertoquestionI: unable toaccepthisconductasbeingconsistentwiththehigh
"(a) Wasthe AdministrativeIfibunal compe- standardsofintegritywhichwererequiredofthoseemployed
tenttodeterminewhetherthepowerofthe bytlheOrganization!,e wouldnotofferhima newappoint-
Director-Generalnot to n:newfixed-term ment onthe expiryOfhis contract.Previously,in a Memo-
appointmentshas been e;rercisedfor the randum issued onJuly 6th. 1954,the Director-Generalhad
goodof t]heserviceand in the interestof announced hisdecision that allholdersof fixed-termcon-
theOrganization? whohadachievedtherequired standardsofefficiency, com-
"(6) was theAdministrativel;~bunalcompe- petence andintegrity would be offered renewalsof their
tent to pronounceon the:attitudewhich appointments.Despitethe opinionto the contrary givenby
the Director-~eneral,untierthetermsof the Unesco Appeals:BoardtowhichDuberghadapplied,the
the Constitutionof u~,:~~ ought to decisionnottorenewhiscontractwasmaintained.OnFebru-
maintainin his relationswitha Member ary 5th. 1955, Duberg brought hiscomplaint before the
state ,articularlyas regardsthe AdministrativeTribunaloftheILOwlhich, iitsJudgmentof
tion of the policy of the Government April26th, 1955,declared itself competetndadjudicated
authoritiesofthatMemberState? on the merits.These were the circumstancesin whichthe
"111. 1nanycae, whatisthevalidityofthe decisions Executivesoad of ,unesco,challengingthejurisdictionof
given the Administrative in its Judgments theTribunalinthatc;aseandconsequentlythevalidityofthe
Nos. 17,18, 19and21?" Judgment,requestedan opinionfrom theCourt in reliance
Upon the receiptof a Requestfor an O~iinionthe Court upontheprovisionsofArticleXI1oftheStatuteoftheTribu-
gave thoseStatesMembersofUnescowhichwereentitledto nal.
appearbeforetheCourt,as theIL0 TheCourtconsideredattheoutsetwhetheritshouldcorn-
organizationswhich had recognizedthejurisdictionof the ply with the Request.It noted in firstplace under
AdministrativeTribunal of the LO, an opportunity to hicle XII the opinion wouldbe.binding,an effect which
opportunity.Unescodid likewise:to its writtenstatements, wentbeyondthe scope attributedbytheChaser oftheUnited
Nationsandbythe oftheCourtto an AdvisoryOpin-
formulatedby co~lnselactingon behalfof the officialscon- ion.However,thepn~visioninquestion,whichwasnothing
cerned.Adequateinformationhaving thus&:enmadeavail- but a rule of conducforthe ExecutiveBoard, in no wise
abletoit, thCouitdidnot holdoralhearings. fiected thway in which thCourt functioned.
to t'It0 with Furthermore, the advisory procedure thus broughitnto
the RequestforandOpinion*gave an affirmativeanswerto beingappearedas selving,ina way,theobjectof anappeal
Question' by lo votesto 3. 'yvotesto49theCourt againsttheJudgment$o;ftheTribunal.Theadvisoryproceed-
that Question'I did not for an answer the ings whichthus took:the place of contentious proceedings
Courtand*withregardto Question lo votesto39that weredesignedto providethatcertainchallengesrelatingto
the validityof the Judgmentswas longel''pen to chal- the validityof Judgmentsrenderedby the 'Ifibun' in pro-
lenge. ceedingsbetweenanofficialandthe internationalorganiza-
Judge Kojevnikov,whilst votinginfavourofthe decision tionconcernedshouldbe brought before theCourtwhereas
oftheCourttocomplywiththeRequestfor a1Opinion,and underthe Statuteof theCourtonlyStatesmaybe partiesin
ofthe finalPartoftheOpinionitselfwithWa:d toQuestions casesbeforeit. TheC~ourt asnotcalledupontoconsiderthe
1and111 declared thathe wasunabletoconcul:intheviewof whetherits Stmte aid itsjudicial characterdid or did not
theCourton Question11. standin the way ofits participating therein.However,con-
Three Judges, Messrs. Winiarski andKliiestadand Sir trar yacceptedpractice, the advisory proceedingswhich
Muhammad ZafrullaKhan, appendedto the(Opinionof the had been institutedin the presentcase involveda certain
CourtstatementsoftheirseparateOpinions.PresidenHt ack- absenceof equalitybetween Unesco andthe officials con-
worth,Vice-PresidentBadawi andJudgesReadand Cordova cerned.Inthefirst place,underthe provisionsoftheStatute
appendedtotheOpinionoftheCourtstatementsoftheirdis- of the AdministrativeTribunal only the Executive Bodfo
sentingOpinions. Unescowasentitledto institutethese proceedings.Butthis
inequalitywasantecedenttothe examinationofthequestion
bytheCourtanddidnotaffect themannerinwhichtheCoua
* undertookthatexarni~lationI.nthesecondplace, inconnec-
* * tionwiththeactualpnxedure beforetheCourt,although the
StatuteandtheRules d CourtmadeavailabletoUnescothe
its*inion, thecour notedthatthe factswereessen- necessaryfacilitiesfor thepresentationof its views, inthe
tiallythesameinallfourcasesand sol:elytothecase caseoftheofficials,thepositionwasdifferent.Butthisdiffi-
ofMr. PeterDuberg(JudgmentNo. 17).Heha.dheldafixed- cultywasmet On theOne hand becausethe observationsof
termappointmentwith unesc wohichwas dueto expire on the officialswere made availableto the Courtthroughthe
December31st, 1954.In 1953and 1954he had refused to of Unesco and On theother becausethe
answertwoquestionnairesof theGovernmentof the United pmedings had beendispensedwith. In view this there
Statesdesignedtomakeavailableto the Director-Generalf appearto have been reason the
Unescocertain information concerningUnia:d Statesciti- Court should refuse to comply with the ~e~uest for an
zens employedby that Organization.Having received an Opinion.
invitationto appearbefore theInternational Organizations' The Court thendedt with the firstquestionput to it. It
Employees LoyaltyBoardofthe United StatesC:ivil Service notedthataccordingtabthewordsoftheprovisionoftheStat-
Commissionhe refusedto do so andon July 13th, 1954so uteoftheAdministrative%bunat, itwasnecessary,inorder
informedtheDirector-Generalof Unesco. On August 13th, to establishthejurisd:ictionof the Wbunal to hear a com-
the Director-Generalinformed Duberg that since he was plaintbyanofficial, thatheshouldallegenon-observanceof
38the termsof appointmentor of the provisiol~sof the Staff sideredthatitcould bereasonably maintainedthaatnadmin-
Regulations. Itwas thereforenecessary that thecomplaint istrative notice framed in such general terms might be
shouldappeartohave a substimtiaa lnd notmerelyanartifi- regarded as bindingon the Organization.If the Director-
cial connectionwith the terms and the provisions invoked Generalthoughtfittorefuseanofficialthebenefit ofthegen-
althoughitwasnotrequired thdtthefactsallegedshouldnec- eralofferthusextended,anydisputewhich mightarisewith
essarilyleadto the results allegedby the cornplainants,for regardtothe matterfellwithinthejurisdictionoftheAdmin-
the latterconstituted theub!stanceof the issuebeforethe istrativeTribunal.
Tribunal. Furth~:rmoret,heCourtnotedthat beforetheTribunab loth
In the casesin question, theofficialshadput forwardan thecomplainantsand Unesco had placed themselveson the
interpretationof theircontractsandof theStaffRegulations groundof the provisionsof the Staff Regulations,within
tothe effectthat theyhada rightto therenewaloftheircon- whoseterms theAdministrative Memorandumof July 6th
tracts.Wasthisassertionsuffi.cientlwell-foundedto estab- also fell.Intheview ofthe Court theMemorandumconsti-
lishthecompetenceofthe Tritmal? Toanswerthatquestion, tuted alnodificationof the StaffRuleswhichthe Director-
it was necessaryto considerthecontractsnot:onlybyrefer- Generalwas authorised tomakeundertheStaffRegulations.
encetotheirletterbutalsoinrelationtotheactualconditions Italsoreferred,expresslyorbyimplication,tothetextofthe
in which theywereenteredinto and theplace which they Staff Regulationsandin particularto the notionof integrity
occupiedin the Organization.In the practiceof the United around whichcentred the controversy submittedto the
Nationsand of the SpecializedAgencies, holdersof fixed- Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, whether looke at
termcontracts,althoughnot assimilatedtoholdersofperma- from the point of view ofnon-observanceof the termsof
nent or indeterminatecontracts, had often been treatedas appointmentor of that of non-observanceof Staff Regula-
entitledto beconsideredforcontinuedemploymeiit,consis- tionsthecomplainantshadalegitimategroundforcomplaint
tently with the requirementsand the general good of the andthe 'I'ribunal asjustifiedinconfirmingitsjurisdiction.
Organization. This practice should serveas a warning ForthesereasonstheCourtgaveanaffirmativeanswerto
againstan interpretationof fixed-termcontracts which,by QuestioinI. WithregardtoQuestionI1the Courtpointedout
consideringexclusivelythe literal meaningftheirprovision that a Requestfor anOpinionexpressly presented withinthe
relating to durationwould mean that on the expiry of the orbitofArticleXI1oftheStatuteoftheAdmiriistrativeTribu-
fixedperiodafixed-term contlactcouldnot berelieduponfor naloughtto be limitedtoachallengeofadecisionoftheTri-
the purposeof impugning a refusaltorenew. Suchaninter- bunal confirmingitsjurisdictionor to casesof fundamental
pretation, moreover, would hi1 to take into account the faultof procedure.SinceQuestionI1referredto neitherof
natureof renewalof such acontract,which indeedconsti- thesetwogroundsofchallengetheCourtisnotintheposition
tuted a continuingperiodof theformer contract, with the to answerQuestion 11.
resultthat there was alegalre'lationshipbetween the renewal The Court,havingthusrejected thecontentionrelatingto
andtheoriginalappointment.Thisrelationshiw phichconsti- thejurisdictionofthe AdministrativeTribunal,theonlycon-
tutedthelegalbasisofthe corr~plaintsftheofficials showed tentionraisedbythe Executive Boardof Unesco, answered
itself once more in the Director-General's Administrative QuestionIn byrecognizingthatthevalidityofthefourJudg-
MemorandumofJuly6th, 1954,citedabove.TheCourc ton- mentswas nolongeropentochallenge.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 23 October 1956