ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > acceptance

Judgment No. 3003

Decision

1. The application by IFAD "for the suspension of the execution of Judgment 2867" is dismissed.
2. The Fund shall pay the defendant costs in the amount of 4,000 euros.
3. Her other claims are dismissed.

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 of the Tribunal
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82

Keywords

icj; organisation; right of appeal; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; iloat statute; interpretation; consultation; acceptance; advisory opinion; consequence; effect

Consideration 30

Extract:

"To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute of the Tribunal

Keywords

grounds; complainant; right of appeal; exception; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; case law; organisation's duties; iloat statute; breach; enforcement; suspension; right

Consideration 32

Extract:

"[T]he Tribunal may at any time decide, when it renders a judgment, to defer the execution thereof if it considers such a measure justified (see Judgment 82 [...], under 5). It is therefore for the organisation concerned, if it seeks to have the execution of a judgment deferred in the event that it proves unfavourable to itself, to submit a subsidiary claim for that purpose. If the Tribunal did not order such a deferral in its decision, it must be deemed to have implicitly required the decision to be executed immediately, in conformity with the general rule, and it is therefore scarcely conceivable that an organisation could be allowed to request a stay of execution of the judgment at a later stage."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 82

Keywords

claim; implied decision; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; counterclaim; organisation's duties; date

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 of the Tribunal; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal

Keywords

icj; competence of tribunal; execution of judgment; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; advisory opinion



 
Last updated: 16.08.2017 ^ top