Judgment No. 4322
The complaints are dismissed.
The complainants contest the appointments of members of the General Advisory Committee for 2014.
cause of action; complaint dismissed; member of an internal body
The Tribunal considers that the present case raises a threshold issue that needs to be resolved: whether the complainantsí status as members of the GAC gives them a cause of action to challenge the appointment of other GAC members.
Although the parties did not raise the question before the Tribunal, the Tribunal must, in this case, address the preliminary issue of the complainantsí cause of action of its own motion. Indeed, the existence of a cause of action is a necessary precondition for the Tribunalís competence. If a complainant does not allege a violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The Tribunalís case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability (see, for example, Judgments 3426, under 16, 3428, under 11, and 3642, under 11).
Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunalís Statute provides that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the staff regulations applicable to them. In accordance with this provision, a member of an advisory body within an international organization, acting in that capacity, may only raise before the Tribunal defects which have affected her/his prerogatives as a member of the body as defined by the internal provisions (see, for example, Judgment 3921, under 6 and 9). The composition of an advisory body does not, except in cases involving manifest perversity, affect the prerogatives of that body. In the present case, the complainants do not specifically allege any non-observance of their terms of appointment or the rules applicable to the GAC. Moreover, the appointment of the Administrationís representatives as members of the GAC does not show any manifest perversity. The impugned decision does not have any legal effect on the complainantsí status (see Judgments 2952, under 3, and 3198, under 13).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2952, 3198, 3426, 3428, 3642, 3921
cause of action; member of an internal body