Judgment No. 82
Decision
1. The intervention of Messrs. Matthey and Millot is stated to be receivable.
2. The intervention of Messrs. Balfroid, Chapuis and Roig, and that of the Staff Association of ITU, are dismissed as not receivable.
3. No ruling is necessary on items 1 and 2 of Mr. Lindsey's submissions.
4. The amount of 13,095.47 Swiss francs fixed by order of the President of the Tribunal on 30 October 1962 in implementation of item 7 of the operative part of the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 4 September 1962 shall bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent as from 1 December 1962.
5. The remainder of the submissions of Mr. Lindsey's complaint is dismissed.
6. The request made by ITU that the legal opinion given by Professor Guggenheim and Professor Marek be omitted from the proceedings is dismissed.
7. The costs incurred by the complainant and by the interveners Matthey and Millot in connection with the present appeal, the amount of which shall be fixed by the President of the Tribunal, shall be borne by the organisation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant requests compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the delay by the organisation in giving effect to the judgment. Intervenors x,y and z, insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right liable to be affected by the present judgment; they are also acting on behalf of the staff, who have no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
lack of injury; locus standi; intervention; receivability of the complaint; cause of action; no cause of action; staff union; staff representative
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The interveners [A and B], to whom [the] judgment [the application of which is requested] had awarded reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them, are holders of rights liable to be affected by the present judgment [...]. On the other hand, the interveners [X, Y and Z], insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right of that kind, and the staff association has no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
injury; intervention; receivability of the complaint; cause of action
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant's submissions aimed at remedying the damage suffered through the delay on the part of the organisation in giving effect to the part of the judgment in question. They "thus bear upon the rights devolving directly from this judgment, delivered within the bounds of the competence of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is therefore competent to examine the new complaint [...] and, in particular, to judge whether it is appropriate to award compensation to remedy the damage caused by an infringement of those rights."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
application for execution; injury; cause of action; administrative delay; competence of tribunal; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant "is entitled to an indemnity compensating him for the damage he has suffered through the delay on the part of [the organisation] in giving effect to [...] the operative part of the [...] judgment [in question]." It emerges from the dossier that this damage will be equitably remedied by deciding that the sum which the organisation must pay - and the amount of which had been fixed by order - shall bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent, payable as from the thirtieth day after notification of the said order.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
injury; administrative delay; judgment of the tribunal; amount; interest on damages; execution of judgment; penalty for delay
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In accordance with a well-established and generally recognised principle of law, any judgment compelling one party to pay to the other party a sum of money implies, in itself, the obligation to pay that sum without delay. It could be otherwise only in the event that the judgment expressly mentioned that this sum would be payable only at a later date and where the Statutes of the court concerned make provision for the right to appeal against the judgments delivered by it and formally state that exercise of that right of appeal carries suspensory effect on execution of those judgments."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
time limit; exception; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; suspensory effects; organisation's duties; delay in payment
Consideration 6
Extract:
The organisation "has the option of asking the International Court of Justice for an opinion, which is binding [...]. This option, which can [...] be used without any restriction as to time, does not affect, in the absence of any explicit provisions in [...] Article XII [of the Statute of the Tribunal], the immediately operative character of those judgments. With regard to the opinion which the organisation may possibly request from the Court by virtue of [...] the agreement between the United Nations and [the organisation], this opinion is only of an advisory character and could not, in any event, have any influence on the execution of the judgment by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE XII OF THE STATUTE
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
icj; organisation; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; suspensory effects; binding character; delay in payment; advisory opinion of icj
Consideration 4
Extract:
The interveners submitted a document on 2 April. On 10 April the judgment was delivered, after the public hearing of 6 April. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage; "that does not necessarily mean that interveners are entitled to invoke up to the day of the proceedings any facts, evidence and new documents. [The material document] deals solely with points of law and raises no new points. Consequently [...] the organisation, [which] learned of this legal opinion three days before the oral proceedings began, has been able usefully to discuss the arguments and the conclusions. The [adversarial] procedure has thus been [followed]".
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 61
Keywords
intervention; receivability of the complaint; time limit; disclosure of evidence; oral proceedings; adversarial proceedings
| 
