|
|
 |
|
|
Advisory opinion of ICJ (882,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory opinion of ICJ
Total judgments found: 13
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion of icj; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;
Considerations 40 and 46
Extract:
Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, in the version applicable to the international organisations which have accepted the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, provides that: "In any case in which the Executive Board of an international organization which has made the declaration specified in Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal challenges a decision of the Tribunal confirming its jurisdiction, or considers that a decision of the Tribunal is vitiated by a fundamental fault in the procedure followed, the question of the validity of the decision given by the Tribunal shall be submitted by the Executive Board concerned, for an advisory opinion, to the International Court of Justice."
"[I]t must be emphasised that the question of whether international organisations should be allowed to request a stay of execution of a judgment that they intend to challenge under Article XII of the Statute arises in the context of a procedure which is already fundamentally imbalanced to the detriment of staff members. [T]he option of submitting a request to the Court for an opinion on the basis of that article is confined to the organisations. [...]
Clearly, it is not for the Tribunal to express a critical opinion on a provision of its own Statute. However, it does have to take care, given that this particular provision creates an objective inequality between the parties, to ensure that its own case law does not in any way amplify the consequences of this inequality, which would undeniably occur if requests for a stay of execution submitted by organisations availing themselves of the Article XII procedure were to be considered admissible. To adopt that course would cause serious harm to the legitimate interests of the officials concerned, thereby upsetting the balance between the rights of the organisations and those of their staff members which it is the Tribunal's role to preserve."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute;
Judgment 1658
83rd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to adjourn the case until a decision has been taken by the [...] Administrative Council of the EPO - on his application for referral of Judgment 1333 [...] to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. [...] The Tribunal asked the Organisation what was the status of any application from the complainant to the Administrative Council for such referral. The Organisation replied [...] enclosing a copy of a letter that the Chairman of its Council had written to the complainant [...] explaining that the conditions for such referral were not fulfilled: the Council was satisfied, said its Chairman, that the Tribunal had been competent to hear the case and that there had been no fundamental fault in the procedure followed. Since the complainant's application for referral to the court has been refused the Tribunal will now take up the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1333
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; complainant; executive body; icj; judgment of the tribunal; procedural flaw; request by a party; submissions;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
The organisation argues that the International Court of Justice in an opinion it delivered on 23 October 1956 "recognised that the internal practices of international organisations may have force of law (Digest 1956, p. 18). But those practices must be lawful and must not offend, as they do in the present case, against the internal law of an organisation or the principles of due administrative process."
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; case law; competition cancelled; due process; icj; practice; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1328
76th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata, save that in accordance with Article XII(1) of its Statute and the Annex thereto their validity may be challenged on referral by an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice on the grounds of lack of competence or a fundamental fault in the procedure followed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE XII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; flaw; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Consideration 12
Extract:
As the International Court of Justice has held, "that rulings by international administrative tribunals are binding in particular where they make awards against organisations is the corollary of their judicial authority." (Advisory opinions of 13 July 1954 and 23 October 1956.) "In Judgment 553 [...] the Tribunal explained the nature of the obligation that its rulings lay on an organisation".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 553
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; compensation; execution of judgment; icj; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment; res judicata; tribunal;
Judgment 646
54th Session, 1984
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has such competence as is conferred on it by Article II of its Statute. Decisions under Article XII and the Annex [on submissions to the International Court of Justice for advisory opinion] fall outside the scope of its competence. In fact, although Article II, paragraph 7, empowers the Tribunal to rule on its own competence, its ruling is subject to the right of the governing body of an international organisation to seek review if it believes that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a fundamental error of procedure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 7, AND ARTICLE XII OF THE STATUTE; ANNEX TO THE STATUTE
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence; competence of tribunal; executive body; icj; iloat statute; request by a party; vested competence;
Judgment 620
53rd Session, 1984
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"According to Article II of its Statute the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the official's terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations. Having only such competence as is conferred upon it, it may not entertain matters out with the ambit of that article. It is therefore not competent to invite the FAO Council to address the International Court of Justice."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; executive body; icj; request by a party; vested competence;
Judgment 118
19th Session, 1968
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"On the submissions impugning the refusal of the Director-General [...] to submit to the Governing Body, for reference to the International Court of Justice, the question of the 'legal validity' of Judgment No. 96 of the Administrative Tribunal: the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to receive submissions of this nature."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 96
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; executive body; executive head; icj; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 83
14th Session, 1965
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
It follows from Article XII of the Statute of the Tribunal "that the possibility of submitting the question of the validity of the decision given by the Tribunal to the International Court of Justice is exclusively vested in the governing body of [the Organisation] or the administrative board of the pensions fund, as is borne out by the court itself (advisory opinion dated 23 October 1956, ICJ reports, 1956, page 77 and pages 84-85). Such a possibility is open in the sole interest of the organisation [...]. Moreover, the exercise of this right must inevitably lead the governing body to take a stand on the validity of judgments rendered by the Administrative Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE XII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence; executive body; icj; organisation's interest; request by a party; unjspf;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal is not competent to decide on [the complainant's] plea for the quashing of the decision [...] by the Director-General [...] whereby he refused to put before the governing body of [the organisation] a proposal to submit the judgment [in question] to the International Court of Justice."
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; executive head; icj; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 82
14th Session, 1965
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; binding character; delay in payment; execution of judgment; icj; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; suspensory effects;
Judgment 70
12th Session, 1964
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration II (3)
Extract:
General principle concerning the rights of the international civil service: it is the duty of the organisation to protect and assist its officials in the performance of their functions or in connection therewith (cf. International Court of Justice: reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations; Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. reports, 1949, page 174).
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; compensation; icj; injury; international civil service principles; organisation's duties;
Judgment 65
11th Session, 1962
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Having regard to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice [...] the [...] Administrative Tribunal is competent to hear complaints relating to the non-renewal of fixed-term appointments (ICJ : reports, 1956, page 77). Although this opinion concerns UNESCO officials, it applies by analogy to the staff of other organizations falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Therefore, the complainant's prayer for the quashing of the decision not to renew her appointment is receivable."
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; contract; fixed-term; icj; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 56
9th Session, 1961
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 65, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 65
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; contract; fixed-term; icj; non-renewal of contract;
|
|
|
|
|
