Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
APPLI[CATHO FNORIREVIEW OFJUDGEMENTNO1 .58OFTHE:
UNITEDNATIONSADMINISTRATIV TERIBUNAL
Adviso~rO ypinionof12 July1973
A requestfor an advisoryopinionhad been submitted to Presidentachshas appendeda declarationto the Advi-
theCourton3July 1972bya letterof28June 197fromthe soryOpinion,andJudgesForsterand NagendraSinghajoint
Secretary-Generalof the UniitedNations in the followingdeclaration. Separate opinionshave been appended by
terms: JudgesOnyeama,DillardandJimknezdeArkhaga; anddis-
"The Committee on 14pplicationsfor Review of senting opinionsby Vice-PresidentAmmoun andJudges
Administrative Tribunal Judgements has decided that Gros, deCastroandMorozov.
thereisasubstantialbasis withinmeanin~ogfArticle11 JudgesPe&n and Ignacio-Pintodid not take part in the
ofthe StatuteoftheAdmini.:rtrateribunallortheappli- proceedings,havingby virtueof Article 24 ofthe Statute
cation for the reviewof AtlministrativeTribunalJudge-infomi thePresident that they did noctonsidertheyshould
ment No.158,deliveredat Genevaon28 A.pril11972. doso.
"Accordingly, the Committee requests an advisory The Vice-President,Judgede CastroandJudge Dillard,
opinionoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeonthefollow- thoughtheyhadplayedafullpartintheproceedingsandpar-
ingquestions: ticipatedin the vote, werepreventedfor reasonsof health
"1. Has the Tribunalfailed to exercisejurisdictionromtakingpartinthe sittingforthereadingoftheAdvisory
vestedin it ascontendedin theapplicant's applicatoon Opinion.
theCommitteeonApplicationsforReview d Aclministra-
tive'ItibunalJudgements(AIAC.86/R.59)? (paras.1-13oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
"2. HastheTribunalcommitteda fundamentalerror
in procedurewhichhas occasioneda failureof justiceas In its Advisory Opinion, the Court recalls that Mr.
contendedintheapplicant'!;applicationtothe Committee MohamedFasla,anofficialof theUnited Nations Develop-
Judgements(AIAC.861RSi. !))?"dministrative Tribunal ment Programme(UNDP),heldafixed-termcontractwhich
wasduetoexpireon 31 December 1969.Whenhiscontract
request,andisoftheopinion:otesto 3,to cclmplywiththe was notrenewed, he appealed successively to theJoint
AppealsBoardandtotheUnited NationsAdministrativT eri-
withregardtoQuestionI, by9votes to4, thattheAdmin- at Genevaon 28 April 1972.On 26 May 1972Mr. Fasla58
vestedinitascontendedintheapplicant'sapplication to theraisedobjectionsto thedecisionandasked the Committon
Committeeon Applicationsfor Reviewof ~ldministrative ApplicationsforReviewof Administrative'IkibunalJudge-
'Ltibunaludgements; ments torequestan advisory opinionof the(20urt.Thisthe
with regardto Question I][,by 10 votesto 3, that the Committeedecided to doon20June1972.
AdministrativeTribunal hasiaotcommitted.afulndamental In formulating therequestfor an advisory opinion,the
errorinprocedurewhichhasoccasionedafailcueofjustice as Commitleeon Applications exerciseda power conferred
contendedintheapplicant'sapplicationtotheCommitteeon uponitbytheGeneralAssemblyoftheUnitedNations inres-
Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal olution957(X)of8November1955,byaddingtotheStatute
Judgements. oftheUnitedNations Administrativ'ItibunalanewArticle
11 providinginteralia:
"1. If. . .thepersoninrespectof whomajudgement
has been rendered by the Tribunal.. .objects to the
judgementonthe ground that the'Itibun... hasfailed
For theseproceedings,the Courtwas connposed as fol- toexercisejurisdiction vesinit.. .orhas committeda
lows: PresidentLachs;ice-Pl~sident rnmotm;JudgesFor- fundamentalerror in procedurewhich hasoccasioneda
ster, Gros, Bengzon,Onyeanla,Dillard, de Castro,Moro- failureofjustice.. thepersonconcernedmay . ..make
zov, Jimknez de Mchaga., Sir Humphrey Waldock, a written applicationto the Committeeestablishedby
Nagendra SinghandRuda. paragraph4ofthis articleaskingtheCommitteetorequest
Continued on nepage an advisory opinionof the International Courtof Justice % of the Charter,and had any activitiesof its own which
onthematter. enabledit to be consideredas requesting advisory opinions
"2. .. . the Committeeshalldecide whetheror not 8 on legalquestionsarisingwithin thescopeofitsactivities,as
thereis asubstantialbasis for the applicationI.ftheCom- providedbyArticle96. TheCourtconcludedthat theCom-
mittee decidesthat sucha basisexists, it shallrequestan mitteewas anorganoftheUnitedNations,dulyconstituted
advisoryopinionof theCourt,andthe Se:cretary-General underArticles7 ancl22of theCharter,and dulyauthorized
shall arrangetotransmittotheCourt theviewsoftheper- underArticle96, paragraph2, oftheCharterto requestadvi-
son referredtoinparagraph1. sory opinionsof thc:Court. Itfollowedthat the Court was
competent underArticle 65 of its Statute to entertain a
"3. ... theSecretary-Generalshalleithergiveeffect requestfor an advisory opinionfrom theCommitteemade
vene speciallyin order that it shall confirmits original withinthe scopeof Article11oftheStatuteoftheAdminis-
judgement,or givea newjudgement,in conformitywith trative'kibunal.
theopinionoftheCourt .. . TheCourtthenconsideredwhetherthecharacterofcertain
featuresof thereview procedure should lead it oeclineto
"4. For thepurpose of this article, a Committeeis answerthe requestfix anopinion. Itfoundthat theredidnot
establishedandauthorized underparagrafih2ofArticle96 appear to beanythingin the characteror operationof the
of the Charterto requestadvisoryopinionsof the Court. Committeewhich nquired the Court to conclude thatthe
TheCommitteeshallbe composedof the MemberStates reviewprocedurewas incompatiblewiththe general princi-
the representativesof whichhave servedon the General ples governingthejudicialprocess,and it rejectedtheobjec-
Committeeof themostrecentregular sessionof theGen-. tionsbaseduponwhlatwassaidto be an inherent inequality
eralAssembly ... " between the staff member, onthe one hand, and the
Pursuantto Article65, paragraph2, of the Statuteof the Secretary-Generaland memberStates, on the other. While
Court,theSecretary-Generao lftheUnited Nationstransmit- notconsideringthatthe reviewprocedurewasfreefrom dif-
tedtotheCourton29August1972documentslikelytothrow !kficulty,the Courthadnodoubtthat, in thecircumstancesof
lightuponthequestion. PursuanttoArticle66, paragraph2, the case, it should comply withthe requestfor an advisory
oftheStatute,theUnitedNationsandits memberStateswere opinion.
informedthat theCourtwould bepreparedtalreceivewritten
statementslikelyto furnish informationon the questionput (paras.41-48eofthe AdvisoryOpinion)
toit. Withinthetime-limitfixedby anOrderof 14 July 1972
(I.C.J.Reports 1972, p. 9), i.e., 20 Septe~mber972,the The Court noted thatthe two questions formulatedin the
UnitedNationssubmittedawrittenstatementon behalfofthe requestwerespecific:alllimitedto the groundsof objection
Secretary-General, togetherwith the views;of Mr. Fasla, raisedand contentiorlsput forwardbyMr.Faslainhisappli-
transmittedtotheCourtinaccordancewith Puticle11,para- cationto the Committee. The two groundsadvancedcorre-
graph2, oftheStatuteoftheAdministrativeTribunal.Subse- sponded totwoofthegroundsofobjectionspecifiedinArti-
Secretary-General,acorrectedversionofthestatementofhise cle 11of theStatuteof the AdministrativeTribunal, amely
viewswithinatime-limitexpiringon5 Dece~nber1972.The failuretoexercisejurisdictionand fundamentalemr inpro-
time-limitfor the submissionof written comments under cedure.A challengeto a decisionof theTribunalon oneof
Article66, paragraph4, of the Statuteof the Courthaving those two groundscouldnotproperlybe transformedintoa
been fixedby the Presidentat 27 November1972and then proceedingagainstthe substanceofthe decision.
extended to 31 January 1973,writtencommentswere filed
on behalfoftheUnitedNations, comprisingtlhecommentsof WasTherea FailurebytheAdministrativeTribunaltoExer-
the Secretary-Generalon the correctedversionof the state- ciseJurisdictionVestedinIt?
ment of the viewsof Mr. Fasla, and the commentsof Mr. ' (paras.49-87 oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
Faslaonthe statementsubmittedonbehalfof theSecretary- IntheCourt'svievv,thisfirst groundofchallengecovered
General.TheUnited Nations and itsmemberStateshad been situationswherethe'Tribunahladeither consciouslyorinad-
informedon6October 1972thatitwas notcontemplatedthat vertently omittedto exercisejurisdictional powers vesind
public hearingsforthe submissionof oral statementswould it andrelevant forits decisionof the case or of a particular
be heldin the case; thiswasconfirmed by a decisionof the materialissueinthe case.
Courton25January 1973. In that connection, the Court rejected the contentionosf
Mr.Faslathat the'kibunalhadfailedtoexercisejurisdiction
CompetenceoftheCourt inthatithadnotfullyconsideredandpasseduponhisclaims
(paras.14-40oftheAdvisoryOpinion) fordamagesfor injuryto professionalreputationandcareer
prospectsandfor rei~mbursemen otf costs, and inthatit had
The proceedingsrepresentedthe first occrlsionon which omittedtoorderthe nxalculationofhisremuneration andthe
theCourt had beencalledupon toconsidera requestfor an corntion andcompletionofhispersonalrecord.
advisory opinion made underthe procedurelaid down in The Court next examinedcertain contentionswhich had
Article 11of the Statuteof the Administrative'kibunal. notbeenfully setfonthbyMr.Faslainhisapplicationto the
Accordingly, although,inthe statemenatnd commentssub- Committeeon Applications forReviewbut which he had
mitte tdthe Court, no questionwasraisedeither asto the enlargedupon inthestatementofhisviewstransmitted tothe
competenceoftheCourtto givetheopinionorastothepro- Court,accordingto which hisrecallandthenon-renewalof
prietyof its doingso, the Court examinedtliosetwo ques- his contracthad beendecidedforunlawfulreasonsconstitut-
tionsinturn. inga misuseof powers.TheCourtnotedthat,inhisapplica-
Asto the Court's competence, the Court considereinter tiontothe'kibunal,:Mr.Faslahadnot requestedthe rescis-
alia whether the Committee onApplicationsfor Review sionof thosedecisionson groundsof illegalityor improper
could be considered one of the "organs of the United motivation,and that the 'kibunalcould not be accusedof
Nations"entitled torequest advisoryopinionsunderArticle failuretoexerciseuriisdictiononthegroundthatithadfailed damental error in procedure, or both simultaneously,
totakemeasureswhich hadnotbeenrequisiteforitsadjudi- appearedto be essentially the same complaints, concerning
cationandwhich none ofthepartieshad askec ttotake. forthemostpartthemannerin whichtheTribunalhadadju-
dicated vhemeritsof his claims, ratherthan assertionsof
Did the United NationA sdministrativeTribunalCommita errorsinprocedureinthepropersenseoftheterm. Hisonly
Funahental ErrorinProcedureOccasioiqing a Failure complaint concerningan error in procedurewas the com-
of Justice? plaintthat thellibunal's decisions rejectingtheclaimshad
(paras.88-100ofthe AdvisoryOpinion) notbeensupportedbyanyadequatereasoning. Afterconsid-
eringthiscomplaint,theCourtconcluded that,havingregard
The Court firstdetermined Uhemeaning and scopeof the to the form andcontentof theJudgement,its reasoningdid
conceptof fundamentalerrorin procedurewhichhadocca- notfallshortoftherequirementsoftherulethatajudgement
sionedafailureofjustice.Incasesbeforethe,Qdministrative of the Administrative Tribunalmust state the reasons on
lfibunal the essenceof the m~atter as thataistaffmember whichitwasbased.
hadafundamentalrightto presenthiscase,eitherorallyorin TheCourtfinallydeclared that therweas nooccasionfor it
writing,and to have itconsidt:redby the Tribunal.before it topronounceuponMr.Fasla'srequestforcostsinrespectof
determinedhis rights.Anenor in procedurewas fundamen- thereview proceedings.It confined itselfto theobservation
tal andconstituteda failureol?justicewhenit wasof sucha thatwhenthe Committeefoundthat therewasa substantial
kind as to violate that rightaxd in thatsenseto deprive the basis for the application,it might be undesirable that the
staff memberofjustice. costsshouldhavetobebornebythestaffmember.
TheCourtnotedthatwhat Mr.Faslaformu'latedundetrhe For these reasons, theCourthas giventhe decision indi-
heading whetheroffailuretoexercisejurisdictionoroffun- catedabove.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 12 July 1973