Ph.D. in International Legal Order and Human Rights, University of Rome «La Sapienza».
Abstract: Since the adoption of its Statute in 1946, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT) has been competent to hear complaints from serving and former officials of the ILO and of the other International Organisations that have recognized its jurisdiction. The disputes can concern non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials, as well as of the provisions of the Staff Regulations or Staff Pensions Regulations. In the multi-year jurisprudence of the ILOAT, many decisions have dealt with the definition of the principle of equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination. The principle of equality requires, for the ILOAT, that all those in a same position should receive equivalent and non-discriminatory treatment, but different factual situations may exist and, therefore, an organization may adopt rules prescribing or allowing reasonable distinctions. This interpretation of the notion of equal treatment has led to a controversial and seesawing case law of the ILOAT on discriminations, with particular regard to discrimination on the type of employment contract. That is why the analysis will be focused on ILOAT’s recent case law concerning discrimination against temporary workers.
Key words: ILO Administrative Tribunal - Equal Treatment – Discrimination - Temporary Workers - Part-Time Work - Justice in administrative procedures.
1. Introductory considerations on the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation and its case law on equal treatment issues
The principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in the working conditions constitutes one of the basic principles promoted by the International Labor Organization (ILO). However, the ILO itself – together with the other International Organizations that have accepted the jurisdiction of its Administrative Tribunal, as will be dealt later – is concerned with the application and the violation of this principle in cases concerning employment relations between its civil servants and the Organization itself. In fact, it is precisely within the ILO that operates the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT), which is competent, since the adoption of its Statute in 1946, to hear complaints from serving and former officials of the ILO and of the other International Organisations that have recognized its jurisdiction. The disputes can concern non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials, of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the Staff Pension Regulations.
It is necessary to recall that the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation is the heir of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, which was competent, from 1927 to 1946, to judge in case of controversies between the Secretariat of the League of Nations and the International Labour Office against their employees. After the dissolution of the League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations, the ILOAT has taken its place.
As mentioned above, different international organizations have accepted the jurisdiction of the ILOAT. That, as it is known, since the Statutes of most international organizations provide that disputes concerning employment relations between the organization and its staff must be settled, as a last resort – that is, following the rule on the prior exhaustion of internal administrative (not only jurisdictional) remedies –, by administrative tribunals instituted by the same organizations or, alternatively, by tribunals of other international organizations. In this case, the two organizations in question conclude an agreement to which the organization the international official belongs to, will accept and recognize the jurisdiction of the organization that established the tribunal.
This is what happens with the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization that, as provided for by article II, paragraph 5 of its Statute, is also 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 «of any other international organization [...] which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration recognizing, in accordance with its Constitution or internal administrative rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for this purpose, as well as its Rules of Procedure, and which is approved by the Governing Body».
At this regard, and in order to understand the extent and importance of the case law of the Tribunal, it is relevant to note that the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal has been recognized by approximately sixty Organizations among which, besides the ILO, the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, the Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, including the World Food Programme), the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many more. Consequently, the Tribunal is currently open to approximately 46 000 international civil servants or former officials of these organisations.
In the multi-year and abundant jurisprudence of the Administrative Tribunal, many decisions have been taken which concern the definition of the principle of equality, equal treatment and non-discrimination. In particular, according to the Tribunal’s case law, the principle of equal treatment requires that «staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law be treated in the same manner by the employer organisation».
So, equal treatment implies that all those in a same position should receive equivalent and non-discriminatory treatment, but, for the Tribunal, different factual situations may exist and, therefore, an organization may adopt rules prescribing or allowing reasonable distinctions.
This interpretation of the notion of equal treatment has led to a controversial and seesawing Administrative Tribunal case law on discriminations, with particular regard to the type of employment contract. That is why the analysis will be focused on Administrative Tribunal recent case law concerning discrimination against temporary workers, as it will be discussed in the following paragraph.
2. Recent and significant ILOAT case law on discriminations on the basis of the type of employment contract
It may be useful to remark that temporary workers are not part of staff members. Very often they perform same or similar activities as the members of the staff but their rights and allowances abound. In contrast to some national jurisdictions (Judgment No. 2624) in which permanent and temporary workers are entitled to the same rights, international organizations do not follow this practice. That is a source of conflicts which affects the work of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation as well.
For example, in Judgment No. 2138 of 15 of July 2002, the employee had been working for fifteen years at the same place with the same job, meanwhile his employer had changed several times: he had been recruited for a joint program of two international organizations and during his service he had been employed by both organizations, respectively. The complainant asked for a long-term contract instead of a new two year appointment from his latest employer but the request was refused.
The Tribunal stated that even if the complainant’s contract had been continuous with the organization in question, this would not bring the right to a long-term contract. According to the Staff Regulations, those who exceed seven years in service may be appointed for a long-term contract by the sole discretion of the Director General. In that case the claimant did not exceed the term due to the circumstances. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.
Technically speaking, the Administrative Tribunal reached a possible verdict, since the decision of the Director General was discretionally.
However, we have to mention that precarious work constitutes one of the biggest problems in the sphere of international officials despite dealing with temporary workers or staff members. International civil servants work under a permanent threat that their contract will not be renewed. Consequently, they are cautious when standing up for their rights – at least in accordance with the allegations of staff unions.
With a similar decision in Judgment No. 2649 of 11 July 2007 the ILOAT dismissed a complaint about the appliance of staff salary scales to temporary workers on the basis that it had no jurisdiction on temporary workers salary scales. The complainant, a temporary worker, claimed his right of being included in a salary scale as if he had been a staff member. The Tribunal insisted on its long-standing and safe practice: if an organization complies with its rules and regulations, the Tribunal seldom examine the regulation itself.
Until now, we have covered cases in which the complainant was employed in short-term contract from the beginning. By contrast, in Deville-Gasser judgment (Judgment No. 2097 of 30 January 2002) the affected civil servants were forced to accept half-time service instead of their previous full-time employment due to the financial situation of the organization. The officials had a choice to reduce the workforce with 50 percent or switch the employment according to the abovementioned fashion. So the previous international civil servant status of the complainants (22 civil servants) had changed to external, temporary worker, pertaining to the Staff Regulations. As a consequence they had lost, among others allowances, dependants’ and language ones and contributions to the Pension Fund. By their interim grievance, the latter element was awarded to them but not with a retroactive effect. The rest of their request was rejected.
The complainants referred to various ILO Conventions to demonstrate an unfair and unequal treatment of the defendant. They referred to the ILO Part-time Work Convention (ILO Convention No. 175, 1994). Under the wording of the Convention, the complainants were «full-time workers affected by partial unemployment». The claimant stated they were not short-term staff members but international civil servants whose fixed-term contracts had been reduced to half-time. In fact, they submitted that the Staff Rules do not mention short-term contracts, but only short-term staff. It is not possible for a fixed-term or permanent contract holder to be, concurrently, short-term staff, even if that person is remunerated under a short-term contract. If their assumption was right, same rights and allowances would be granted to them as for full-time staff members.
Moreover, the complainant referred to ILO Equal Remuneration Convention (ILO Convention No. 100, 1951) which requires that all workers be given equal remuneration for work of equal value.
For the claimant, the defendant clearly breached this principle, making sharp distinction between full-time and short-term staff.
In its reply the Organization (World Health Organization - WHO) argued that ILO Conventions are not binding on international organizations, but solely on the member States which had ratified the legal norm. Furthermore, there was not a breach of the equal remuneration principle since short-term and full-time employment was legally and factually different. The decision about pension scheme was discretional although there were not any obligations to do so. It was taken in good faith and as a gesture of goodwill.
The Tribunal accepted the World Health Organization’s arguments. It is interesting to underline that the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation declared that the Conventions did not apply to the case but it did not add to the fact that ILO Conventions have been excluded at all from the application to the cases before the Tribunal.
So, all of the complaints so far mentioned were dismissed. Although the claims were admitted due to the extension of the notion of officials who are entitled to apply for the Administrative Tribunal, according to the Tribunal itself there is not equal treatment between staff members and short-term workers as their factual and legal position is so different.
Also in other similar cases, the Administrative Tribunal confirmed this tendency. In Judgment No. 2308 of 4 February 2004, concerning the World Health Organization, the complainant sought compensation in lost salary and benefits for the years during which she had been remunerated on the basis of short-term employment while performing work of indefinite duration equivalent to that of a fixed-term staff member. In other words, she claimed a retroactive fixed-term status. For the Administrative Tribunal, there is no basis on which the complainant can claim to be treated retroactively as if she had a fixed-term contract. She was recruited as a short-term staff member without having to go through a competition process; she accepted several contract renewals. It was within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide during all those years whether to renew each short-term contract or offer her a fixed-term contract. She accepted and signed all the short-term contracts. If what is sought is to have the Tribunal treat those short-term contracts as being null, it must be shown that they have violated some fundamental and overriding principles of law or that her apparent consent thereto was vitiated (see Judgment No. 2097, mentioned above). This, the complainant has failed to do.
Instead, in another significant recent case law, the Administrative Tribunal showed a different point of view. As an example of this jurisprudential position it may be first recalled the Judgment No. 3090 of 8 February 2012. In this case, World Intellectual Property Organization employment relationship with the complainant always rested on short-term contracts. These contracts were systematically renewed without any noticeable breaks, with the result that the complainant pursued a career in the Organization for more than seven years, i.e. until the expiry of her last contract. This long succession of short-term contracts gave rise to a legal relationship between the complainant and World Intellectual Property Organization which was equivalent to that on which permanent staff members of an organisation may rely. In considering that the complainant belonged to the category of short-term employees to whom the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules do not apply and who do not enjoy legal protection comparable to that enjoyed by other staff members, the defendant failed to recognise the real nature of its legal relationship with the complainant. In so doing it committed an error of law and misused the rules governing short-term contracts.
For this reason, the Administrative Tribunal decided that damages had to be awarded to the complainant. In fact, the Organization’s erroneous legal assessment resulted in the complainant being kept in a precarious employment situation throughout her service, although her work was not targeted on any particular, specific needs but consisted in the performance of duties similar to those given in principle to permanent staff members. The complainant has thus been the victim of discriminatory treatment.
In another recent decision, held in Judgment No. 3299 of 5 February 2014, the complainant successfully challenged a decision to keep in her personal file a warning letter and the non-renewal of her contract.
In particular, according to the complainant (who worked in the International Organization for Migration - IOM), the decision not to renew her appointment was based on inaccurate facts, and on an irregular evaluation of her performance.
The complainant also alleged harassment on the part of her supervisor. In her view, some of the guidelines given by her supervisor were clearly abusive, especially since she had signed her employment contract thereby accepting to act in conformity with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.
In this respect, the Administrative Tribunal recalled the "Policy for a Respectful Working Environment", as provided for in IOM’s General Bulletin No. 2017 of 22 August 2007. In paragraph 2 of the General Bulletin, in particular, IOM makes a commitment to the principle that every staff member has the right to work in a respectful, harassment-free environment. Moreover, paragraph 11 of the General Bulletin No. 2017 of 2007 affirms the right of every staff member and non-staff personnel to be treated fairly and respectfully in the workplace. Each staff member has the responsibility to treat co-workers in a way that respects individual differences.
Against these provisions, it is apparent that the guidelines issued to the complainant by the Head of the Support Unit were inappropriate and unhelpful for a sound working relationship tending to a form of harassment under IOM policy.
Furthermore, the Administrative Tribunal defines as «ingenious but unconvincing» the explanation given by the organisation concerned to justify the non-renewal of the complainant’s contract.
For these reason the Administrative Tribunal has decided to condemn the IOM to pay the complainant for moral and material damages and to set aside the impugned decision.
Similarly, in a further judgment delivered by the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO on 09 July 2014 (Judgment No. 3353), the complainants challenge the non-renewal of their contracts following a restructuring process and obtain moral damages for the serious affront to their dignity and the failure to give reasonable notice.
This time the two complainants had joined the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in July 2008 under short-term contracts. In 2009, they were offered two-year fixed-term appointments. On January 2011 the Secretary-General notified to the complainants the decision not to renew their appointments upon their expiry at the end of the month, because of a restructuring process and of the consequent abolition of their post.
In this regard, the Tribunal’s case law recognises, for the ILOAT, several obligations on an international organisation where it does not renew a staff member’s fixed-term contract. According to the case law, substantively, «a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be based on objective and valid grounds». There are also formal requirements. These, however, are to be assessed against the background of the consistent statements by the Tribunal that the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is discretionary and can be reviewed only on limited grounds.
Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation. The Tribunal will only impeach such a decision if it is ultra vires, that is, «if the decision is tainted by a legal or procedural irregularity; is based on incorrect facts; if essential facts have not been considered or wrong conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or if the decision is based on an error of fact or law or amounts to an abuse of authority».
Moreover, for the Tribunal, the relations between an international organisation and a staff member must be governed by good faith, respect, transparency and consideration for their dignity. Accordingly, an organisation is required to treat its staff with due consideration and to avoid causing them undue injury. An organisation must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided. In particular, good faith requires an organisation to inform a staff member in advance of any action that it might take which may impair a staff member’s rights or rightful interest.
The Administrative Tribunal also states, in the Judgment de qua, that it must be taken to be normal practice in any international organisation to involve the Chief of a Section or Department in plans for its reorganisation. This is because not to do so would ordinarily constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person.
Furthermore, the submission of the ITU misses the essential and overriding concern that it is inimical to the dignity of a person who held the senior management positions that the complainants did, to have been left unaware that restructuring was being contemplated and then pursued. It is the Tribunal’s view that this was «insensitive and it was not unexpected that they would have felt embarrassed, sidelined and hurt to be informed that their contracts would not be renewed because their posts were to be eliminated by a process that they were unaware of until it culminated in the abolition of their posts. [...] The Tribunal has not seen any good reason why the restructuring process was shrouded in secrecy and why that eventuality was not known to the complainants».
However, despite these considerations, the Administrative Tribunal doesn’t draw the consequence of the reinstatement of the complainants, because «reinstatement of a person on a fixed-term contract can be ordered but only in exceptional cases […]. The circumstances in these cases are not of an exceptional character. In addition and more fundamentally, the issue of reinstatement does not arise because the decision not to renew the contracts remains a valid decision».
Consequently, the Administrative Tribunal “only” condemned the ITU shall to pay each complainant the damages for moral injury.
Also in a more recent decision the Administrative Tribunal, having ruled in favor of the complainant, condamned the Organisation concerned (the International Criminal Court - ICC) to pay the damages to the complainant. To specify, in Judgment No. 3444 of 11 February 2015 the Tribunal accepted the complainant’s argument that he had not been provided with clear and valid reasons for not renewing his contract.
To reach this decision, the Tribunal recalls, first of all, his own jurisprudence, according to which an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires.
The Tribunal also points out that the decision whether to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment lies within the discretion of the organization. This discretion is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, that cannot substitute its own assessment with that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of the discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken «without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence».
Notwithstanding the consideration so far mentioned, the Administrative Tribunal comes to a conclusion particularly significant for the purposes of the present study. In fact, it states that where the abolition of an office by virtue of re-organization of a department or unit is proffered as the reason for the non-renewal of a contract, this must be done «on objective grounds and not as a pretext for removing undesirable staff as that would be considered an abuse of authority». The decision must also be taken by the competent authority.
Moreover, the Administrative Tribunal states that notwithstanding the discretionary nature of such a decision, «it must be taken for a valid reason that is given to the staff member».
3. Concluding remarks
From the case law of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation so far analysed emerges a contradictory - and not always courageous - jurisprudential position in bringing the principle of equal treatment to its practical consequences.
In most cases, the common practice assumed by the Administrative Tribunal is to deny, de facto, an equal treatment to temporary workers on the basis of the different rules applicable to the temporary or permanent contracts, or claiming its impossibility to judge due to the fact that it has no jurisdiction on temporary workers rules, as discussed in the case of salary scales (Judgment No. 2649 of 2007).
In other cases the Administrative Tribunal, despite the relevant considerations about the respect for dignity on the working place, shows reluctance in recognizing the complainant’s rights to reinstatement. This, also on the basis of the type of employment contract. In this sense it can be read, for example, the aforementioned Judgment No. 3299 under 28: «The Tribunal is cognisant of the fact that the complainant was on a short-term contract. The Tribunal is also cognisant of the practical difficulties that would arise given the effluxion of time since the non-renewal of the complainant’s contract. In these circumstances, reinstatement is not a viable option».
In this respect it should be noted that the right to reinstatement into the workplace is the essential element for assessing the effectiveness of the principle of equal treatment, and not always this right has been duly granted by the Administrative Tribunal.
AMERASINGHE, C. F.: Reflections on the Internal Judicial Systems of International Organizations, in ELIAS, O. (ed.): The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012. 440 pages. ISBN 9789004194700.
DALLARI, P.: Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations and World Constitutionalism, in ELIAS, O. (ed.): The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012. 440 pages. ISBN 9789004194700.
DEL VECCHIO, A.: International Courts and Tribunals between Globalization and Localism. The Hague: Eleven, 2013, 312 pages. ISBN 978‐94‐90947‐70‐5.
ELIAS, O. and THOMAS, M.: Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations, in GIORGETTI, C. (ed.): The rules, practice, and jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012. 612 pages. ISBN 9789004194823.
GALLO, D.: The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Right of Access to Justice of International Organizations: The Need for a Reform in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012. In: Working Paper 2014, n. 2, pp. 1-20. ISBN 978886856004.
Germond, L. : Les principes généraux selon le tribunal administratif de l’O.I.T.. Paris: édition Pedone, 2009. 376 pages. ISBN 978-2-233-00555-7.
GUTTERIDGE, F.: The ILO Administrative Tribunal, in DE COOKER, C. (ed.): International Administration. Law and Management Practice in International Organizations. 5th edition. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009.
KINGSBURY, B., and STEWART, R.: Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations from the Perspective of the Emerging Global Administrative Law, in ELIAS, O.: The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012. 418 pages. ISBN 978-9004194700.
KLABBERS, J.: An Introduction to International Institutional Law. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 393 pages. ISBN 9780521736169.
PALMIERI, G. M. : Sur les perspectives de réforme de la protection juridictionnelle au sein des organisations «coordonnées». In : Rivista della cooperazione giuridica internazionale, 2015, n. 50, pp. 27-56.
PALMIERI, G.M. (ed.): Les évolutions de la protection juridictionnelle des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens: actes du colloque organisé à Luxembourg les 1 et 2 avril 2011. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2012. 364 pages. ISBN 2802735462, 9782802735465.
PALMIERI, G.M., Fonction publique internationale et immunité de juridiction des Organisations internationales à travers le prisme de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, dans PANELLA, L. et SPATAFORA, E.: Studi in onore di Claudio Zanghì, volume 3 – Tome 1, p. 253 et suivantes. Torino: Giappichelli. 2012. 3108 pages. ISBN 9788834825808.
REINISCH, A.: The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of their Administrative Tribunals. In: Chinese JIL, 2008, n. 7, pp. 285-306.
RIDDELL, A.: Administrative Boards, Commissions and Tribunals in International Organizations, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford: Rüdiger Wolfrum, 2012, pp. 66-77.
SANDS, P. and KLEIN, P. (eds.): The Bowett’s Law of International Institutions, 5th edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2001. 610 pages.
SCHERMERS, H. G., and BLOKKER, N.: International Institutional Law. Unity within Diversity. 5th edition. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011. 1274 pages. ISBN 9789004187962.
SICAULT, J.D.: Le TAOIT: tendances jurisprudentielles récentes en matière de compétence et de recevabilité, dans PALMIERI, G.M. (ed.): Les évolutions de la protection juridictionnelle des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens: actes du colloque organisé à Luxembourg les 1 et 2 avril 2011. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2012. 364 pages. ISBN 2802735462, 9782802735465.
SZALAY, A.: Equal Treatment and the ILO Administrative Tribunal. In: International Employment & Labor Law eJournal, 2011.
* The present essay has been presented at the International Scientific Conference «Bratislava Legal Forum 2015», held in Bratislava, Slovakia, on October 9th – 10th, 2015.
 On the international administrative tribunals see, generally and between many others: AMERASINGHE, C. F.: Reflections on the Internal Judicial Systems of International Organizations, in ELIAS, O. (ed.): The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012, pp. 33-58; DALLARI, P.: Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations and World Constitutionalism, in ELIAS, O. (ed.): The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012, pp. 59-68.; DEL VECCHIO, A.: International Courts and Tribunals between Globalization and Localism. The Hague: Eleven, 2013, pp. 50-55; ELIAS, O. and THOMAS, M.: Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations, in GIORGETTI, C. (ed.): The rules, practice, and jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012, pp.159-190; KINGSBURY, B., and STEWART, R.: Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations from the Perspective of the Emerging Global Administrative Law, in ELIAS, O.: The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012, pp. 69-104; KLABBERS, J.: An Introduction to International Institutional Law. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 269-273; PALMIERI, G. M.: Sur les perspectives de réforme de la protection juridictionnelle au sein des organisations «coordonnées». In: Rivista della cooperazione giuridica internazionale, 2015, n. 50, pp. 27-56; REINISCH, A.: The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of their Administrative Tribunals. In: Chinese JIL, 2008, n. 7, pp. 285-306; RIDDELL, A.: Administrative Boards, Commissions and Tribunals in International Organizations, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford: Rüdiger Wolfrum, 2012, pp. 66-77.
 GALLO, D.: The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Right of Access to Justice of International Organizations: The Need for a Reform in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012. In: Working Paper 2014, n. 2, pp. 1-20. On the ILOAT see, generally: Germond, L.: Les principes généraux selon le tribunal administratif de l’O.I.T. Paris: édition Pedone, 2009; GUTTERIDGE, F.: The ILO Administrative Tribunal, in DE COOKER, C. (ed.): International Administration. Law and Management Practice in International Organizations. 5th edition. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009. pp.1-33; SICAULT, J.D.: Le TAOIT: tendances jurisprudentielles récentes en matière de competence et de recevabilité, dans PALMIERI, G.M. (ed.): Les évolutions de la protection juridictionnelle des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens: actes du colloque organisé à Luxembourg les 1 et 2 avril 2011. Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2012, pp. 45-64; SZALAY, A.: Equal Treatment and the ILO Administrative Tribunal. In: International Employment & Labor Law eJournal, 2011.
 Article II, paragraph 5 of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation. It can be useful to remark that article II of the Statute of the Tribunal has been modified in 1949, at the thirty-second Session of the International Labour Conference, in order to allow the recognising of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by other international organisations.
 In particular, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal has been recognized by the following Organizations (in order of recognition): International Labour Organization (ILO), including the International Training Centre; World Health Organization (WHO), including the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); International Telecommunication Union (ITU); United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); World Meteorological Organization (WMO); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); including the World Food Programme (WFP); European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN); World Trade Organization (WTO); International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol); Universal Postal Union (UPU); European Southern Observatory (ESO); Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries (CIPEC) (until 1992); European Free Trade Association (EFTA); Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU); European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL); World Tourism Organization (UNWTO); European Patent Organisation (EPO); African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development (CAFRAD); Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF); International Center for the Registration of Serials (CIEPS); International Office of Epizootics (OIE); United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol); International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV); Customs Co-operation Council (CCC); Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA Court); Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association (ESA); International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) (until 14 July 2004); International Organization for Migration (IOM); International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB); Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW); International Hydrographic Organization (IHO); Energy Charter Conference; International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom); European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO); International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI); International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA); International Criminal Court (ICC); International Olive Council (IOC); Advisory Centre on WTO Law; African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP Group); Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation (AITIC); European Telecommunications Satellite Organization (EUTELSAT); International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML); International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV); Centre for the Development of Entreprise (CDE); Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA); South Centre; International Organisation for the Development of Fisheries in Central and Eastern Europe (EUROFISH); Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA); The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM); ITER International Fusion Energy Organization (ITER Organization); Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM); Global Crop Diversity Trust (Crop Trust); consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR Consortium).
 See Judgment No. 2198, under 14.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 2138 of 15 of July 2002.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 2649 of 11 July 2007.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 2097 of 30 January 2002.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 2308 of 4 February 2004.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 3090 of 8 February 2012.
 Ivi, under 10.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 3299 of 5 February 2014.
 She argued that she merely received some guidelines from her supervisor but was not given proper objectives or terms of reference.
 Judgment No. 3299, under 14.
 Judgment No. 3299, under 15. This was highlighted, for the Tribunal, from the warning letter in which the Head of the Support Unit stated that the complainant's unsatisfactory performance was reflected in her lack of progress in contacting the focal points of United Nations Member States.
 Judgment No. 3299, under 26.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 3353 of 09 July 2014.
 Ivi, under 15.
 The reference is to the ILOAT’s Judgments No. 2933, under 10, No. 2830, under 6, No. 1231, under 26, and No. 1154, under 4.
 Judgment No. 3353, under 16. In the same direction: Judgments No. 2850, under 6, No. 2861, under 83, and No. 3299, under 6.
 In this sense also Judgment No. 1479, under 12.
 Judgment No. 3353, under 26.
 Ivi, under 30. See also Judgment No. 2861, under 27.
 Ivi, under 31.
 Ivi, under 35.
 ILOAT, Judgment No. 3444 of 11 February 2015. The complainant joined the ICC on 5 March 2007 on a fixed-term General Temporary Assistance contract as a Data Entry Clerk/Transcriber at grade G-3 in the Data Processing Unit. In 2008, he was reclassified in grade G-4 with the job title of Data Processing Assistant. His appointment was extended several times, but he was given oral and written notice, on 26 October 2011, that his contract would not be extended after 29 February 2012. The written notice also indicated that, although his current contract would have expired on 31 December 2011, the Executive Committee had decided to grant him two additional months to enable him to search for other employment opportunities. The Prosecutor’s Office further assured the complainant of its support, especially if he needed assistance to apply for other positions. The written notice also informed him that he would be notified of any opportunities of which Human Resources became aware. However, a few days later, by communication dated 1 November 2011, the Head of the Investigation Division informed all staff members of the Division of a decision to extend all General Temporary Assistance contracts to the end of September 2012 as a first step to improve job security. The complainant and a few other members of his Unit within the Investigation Division did not benefit from this decision. In internal proceedings, the complainant sought a review of the decision not to renew his contract. This culminated in the impugned decision, in which the Prosecutor did not accept the Appeals Board’s second recommendation that the ICC should take steps to address what seemed to have been a prevailing atmosphere of mistrust within the Unit. The complainant does not challenge this aspect of the impugned decision. He challenges the Prosecutor’s decision to accept the recommendation by the Appeals Board to reject the internal appeal as unfounded because the complainant provided no evidence to substantiate his case.
 Judgment No. 3444, under 3.
 The Administrative Tribunal recalls, as examples of this jurisprudential position, its own Judgments No. 3299, under 6, No. 2861, under 83, and No. 2850, under 6.
 Judgment No. 3444, under 4. The Administrative Tribunal recalls its Judgments No. 1231, under 26, and No. 2830, under 6, recently confirmed in Judgment No. 3353, under 13-16.
 Idem. See also, in this direction, Judgment No. 1273, under 8.
 Judgment No. 3444, under 4. In the same sense, also the previous Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, No. 1154, under 4.
 Judgment No. 3299, under 28.