Judgment No. 3359
Decision
1. The ICC shall take such steps as are necessary to resubmit the Presidency’s 5 October 2010 memorandum to the Assembly of States Parties for the purpose referred to in consideration 30.
2. The ICC shall pay each of the complainants 1,000 euros by way of costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainants, former judges of the ICC, impugn the implied decision of the Assembly of States Parties not to determine to which Pension Scheme they were subjected.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; pension
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainants’ assertions of standing by reference to the ICC Staff Regulations. It is not disputed that the judges are “officials” of the ICC as stated in the ICC Headquarters Agreement. However, the broad definition of “officials” does not assist the complainants’ position in relation to the Staff Regulations."
Keywords
locus standi; staff regulations and rules; official
Considerations 16 and 17
Extract:
"[T]he ICC does not dispute that the complainants are officials of the Court and that it has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, the ICC contends that since Staff Regulation 11.2 limits access to the Tribunal to staff members, the complainants do not have standing to bring the present complaint.
In effect, the ICC is arguing that the judges are without recourse for alleged violations of the terms and conditions of their appointment. This argument is rejected. The complainants are officials and their rights are not constrained by the Staff Regulations. Their right to access the Tribunal is conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute itself."
Keywords
locus standi; official
Consideration 19
Extract:
"It is settled that pension entitlement is a term of appointment and clearly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction."
Keywords
competence of tribunal; pension entitlements
Consideration 29
Extract:
"As the complainants point out in their pleas, fundamental protections of the type in Article 49 are a common feature in many democracies with independent judiciaries. They exist to preserve and protect the independence of the judiciary, they do not exist to benefit individual judges, notwithstanding that they have this effect."
Keywords
independence
| 
