International Administrative Tribunals and Cross-Fertilization: Evidence of a Nascent Common Jurisprudence?

I. Introduction

International Administrative Tribunals (IATs) play a unique role at the cross-roads of international law, institutional law, and administrative law. Since international organizations are immune from the jurisdiction of the host State,1 when a dispute develops between an international civil servant and the employing organization, the staff member cannot simply haul the employer before a national court to resolve it. Thus, the international civil service needs a separate adjudicatory system where the organization is not immune, and IATs have come to fill this role. Beginning with the creation of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations in 1927, which continued as the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) upon the dissolution of the League,2 the number of IATs has now grown to almost thirty.3

The uniqueness of IATs is borne out in the sources of law they apply. On the one hand, as adjudicative bodies between staff members and the organizations in which they work, IATs draw heavily on internal sources, in particular the contract of employment, the staff regulations and staff rules, and administrative issuances of the organization. On the other hand, as tribunals serving international organizations and their international cadre of staff members, IATs also draw on “international law” sources such as those found in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in particular general principles, certain international conventions, and customary international law.4

One area that has been overlooked, however, is the extent to which IATs are citing each other and, in so doing, developing a common jurisprudence of international administrative law.5 This, it could be argued, is rapidly emerging as an important source of law in its own right in many IATs. It is this trend that is the focus of the present work. Over fifty years ago when only a handful of IATs existed, Michael B. Akehurst, a commentator in the field, observed that “[i]nternational administrative tribunals behave as if the internal laws of different organizations formed part of a single system of law” and that it was “clear that the internal laws of different organizations bear a remarkable resemblance to each other, and can therefore establish strong precedents for each other.”6

The present work aims to take stock of whether Akehurst’s statement remains true today, or if the proliferation of tribunals has instead led to divergences in jurisprudence. Much like the debate in international law writ large, the question to be answered is one between fragmentation7 and universalization.8 Engaging in a thorough review of all current IAT jurisprudence¾the first comprehensive study of its kind¾I will argue that indeed Akehurst’s statement has proven correct, perhaps beyond what he could have ever imagined. Far from the divergence and fractures that some have warned against as the number of IATs has grown,9 there has been a convergence, as IATs have increasingly cited each other in an exercise of reciprocal growth, sharing the task of creating and developing an ever more universal international administrative law.

Part II will consider this phenomenon of “cross-fertilization” through a review of the jurisprudence of all IATs. Part III will approach the question by examining the most influential cases in terms of number of times they have been cited by other IATs and the quantity of other IATs citing to them. Part IV will offer some concluding observations.

II. Cross-Fertilization in the Jurisprudence of Each Tribunal

The present section will examine the question of cross-fertilization among IATs by engaging in an exhaustive review of the jurisprudence of all IATs. The tribunals are presented not based on their age or size of their jurisprudence but rather based on an appreciation of their contributions to cross-fertilization, beginning with those tribunals having most actively participated in cross-fertilization and progressing to those less willing to engage in it.

A. The Leaders of Cross-Fertilization

While it is the premise of this work that virtually all IATs are citing to their sister tribunals with increasing regularity, some of them are certainly leading this charge. This subsection reviews the jurisprudence of those tribunals most actively involved in cross-fertilization, including the World Bank Administrative Tribunal (WBAT), the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (IMFAT), the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT), the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (ADBAT), the Council of Europe Administrative Tribunal (COEAT), and the African Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (AfDBAT).

1. World Bank Administrative Tribunal (WBAT)

The WBAT was established in 1980. It is the independent judicial forum of last resort for cases submitted by staff members of the World Bank Group alleging non-observance of their contracts or terms of employment. It has rendered 692 decisions to date.10 No tribunal has addressed cross-fertilization between IATs as directly and clearly as the WBAT in its first case, in the celebrated de Merode Decision. In that Decision, the WBAT considered the question of cross-fertilization in detail, and it merits quotation in extenso:

The Tribunal does not overlook the fact that each international organization has its own constituent instrument; its own membership; its own institutional structure; its own functions; its own measure of legal personality; its own personnel policy; and that the difference between one organization and another are so obvious that the notion of a common law of international organization must be subject to numerous and sometimes significant qualifications. But the fact that these differences exist does not exclude the possibility that similar conditions may affect the solution of comparable problems. While the various international administrative tribunals do not consider themselves bound by each other’s decisions and have worked out a sometimes divergent jurisprudence adapted to each organization, it is equally true that on certain points the solutions reached are not significantly different. It even happens that the judgments of one tribunal may refer to the jurisprudence of another. Some of these judgments even go so far as to speak of general principles of international civil service law or of a body of rules applicable to the international civil service. Whether these similar features amount to a true corpus juris is not a matter on which it is necessary for the Tribunal to express a view. The Tribunal is free to take note of solutions worked out in sufficiently comparable conditions by other administrative tribunals, particularly those of the United Nations family. In this way the Tribunal may take account both of the diversity of international organizations and the special character of the Bank without neglecting the tendency towards a certain rapprochement.11

Thus, the WBAT appears to trace a careful line by accepting the primacy of the internal law of each organization while acknowledging or even encouraging cross-fertilization, in light of the many common issues that IATs face. There is no doubt that this statement has served as encouragement for other IATs to refer to the jurisprudence of their sister tribunals,12 thus paving the way for much of the cross-fertilization discussed in the current work.

Although the WBAT did not actually cite any other IATs in its de Merode Decision after making this statement—limiting itself to general statements that a given principle “has been applied in many judgments of other international administrative tribunals”13 —it has referred to specific decisions of other IATs regularly in subsequent cases.

The WBAT has cited to its sister tribunal the IMFAT a number of times. For example, in the AA case, it cited the IMFAT to show that the Bank is separate from the staff association and cannot be held liable for its actions unless the staff association acted at the instructions of management or under its effective control.14 In the E case, the WBAT cited a 2001 IMFAT judgment dealing with the principle of abstention, according to which an administrative tribunal must avoid interpreting a decision of a national court.15 In Farah Aleem & Irfan Aleem, the WBAT considered the effect of competing divorce decrees from the United States and Pakistan.16 Even after recalling that a related issue had already been addressed in its own decision in the E case, the WBAT referred to and followed the 2001 IMFAT judgment cited in the E case, concluding that the retired staff member had no legal basis to evade the U.S. divorce decree.17

The WBAT has cited the jurisprudence of the ILOAT multiple times as well. For example, in BO, a case concerning the fairness of a recruitment procedure, the WBAT cited the jurisprudence of the ILOAT both for the proposition that preference for gender parity cannot outweigh candidates’ qualifications and for the proposition that long delays and lack of information in a recruitment proceeding should be compensated.18 In the S case, the WBAT cited a judgment of the ILOAT to support its conclusion that when “staff members are involved in a crime, international administrative tribunals give considerable deference to the management’s evaluation of institutional interests.”19 The WBAT also cited to the ILOAT in the Cissé case, which concerned a staff member who was a former Prime Minister of Niger.20 While a staff member for the Bank, he was nominated as a candidate for the Presidency of Niger.21 As a result, questions of interpretation of a staff rule relating to pursuit of national public office arose. The WBAT cited to the ILOAT for the proposition that “Staff Regulations should be interpreted in themselves, with due regard to their purpose and independently of national legislation.”22

The WBAT has also relied on the jurisprudence of the ADBAT. For example, in the two substantially similar cases of Vera Caryk and Madhusudan, the WBAT considered claims that the use of successive short-term contracts had deprived staff members of certain benefits, including pension.23 The applicants in both cases relied heavily on the Amora Decision of the ADBAT, in which that tribunal held that if a label given to an employment relationship was merely a device to deny the employee regular staff benefits, it should be disregarded.24 The WBAT commented in both decisions that, “[a]s such, the Amora decision is not binding on the present Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal considers that a harmony of views of similar international jurisdictions is to be welcomed, if possible, and of course the Tribunal will be influenced by persuasive analysis whatever its source.”25 The WBAT stated in both judgments that the Amora Decision was “persuasive but clearly distinguishable,” as the applicant in that case was treated as an independent contractor, while the applicant before the WBAT was a staff member, albeit on short-term contracts.26

The WBAT has cited to the tribunals of the U.N. internal justice system for a variety of issues. In this regard, it certainly stands out for citing to the UNDT and UNAT much more than other IATs do. For example, in the CL case, it cited to the UNDT for the proposition that “[i]t is a universal obligation of both employee and employer to act in good faith towards each other.”27 In the FM case, it adopted the definition of constructive dismissal used by the UNDT and UNAT.28 In the Tanner case, it adopted the UNDT definition of what constitutes a failure to report for duty.29 In the FA case, it referred to the jurisprudence of both the UNDT and UNAT for the proposition that a sexual relationship between staff members can be established through text and email messages, even in the absence of physical contact.30 In the AI (No. 3) case, it cited the UNAT for the proposition that an applicant cannot use the revision procedure as “a disguised way to criticize the Judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it.”31 The WBAT also occasionally refers to the jurisprudence of the former UNAdT.32

Thus, not only has the WBAT influenced and encouraged cross-fertilization with its pronouncement in its seminal de Merode Decision, it has continued to practice cross-fertilization throughout its jurisprudence by citing regularly to a wide variety of different IATs.

2. International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (IMFAT)

The IMFAT was established in 1994 for the resolution of employment disputes between the International Monetary Fund and its staff members. It has delivered 72 judgments to date.33 The IMFAT has cited to other IATs very extensively. Indeed, a review of IMFAT judgments from 1994 to 2020 revealed 375 references to the WBAT, 142 references to the ILOAT, 55 references to the UNAT, 53 references to the ADBAT, 20 references to the UNDT, 9 references to the IDBAT and 5 references to the AfDBAT.34 Of these figures, the 375 references to the WBAT are particularly striking, given that the WBAT has only referred to the jurisprudence of the IMFAT on a mere three occasions.35 Thus, like the relationship between the ILOAT and the UNDT discussed below, one finds a sort of one-way conversation between these tribunals, strong in one direction and almost non-existent in the other. The reasons for this are unclear, but one does notice between these two tribunals within important international financial institutions a similar dynamic that can be seen between two other significant tribunals, the ILOAT and the UNDT: the tribunal first to be established is noticeably more reticent to cite to the other.

The IMFAT cites to other IATs so frequently that space does not permit an exhaustive treatment of each such instance. This section will instead focus on cases where the IMFAT has cited to other IATs the most extensively. In these cases, the evidence of cross-fertilization is indisputable: one can clearly see a tribunal willingly developing its reasoning by reference not just to the occasional external decision but to numerous decisions of several tribunals within the same judgment.

For example, in its 2007 Judgment in Mr. D’Aoust (No. 2), in which an unsuccessful applicant in a selection procedure challenged that procedure as tainted by procedural defects, the IMFAT cited some twenty judgments of other IATs, including nine judgments of the ILOAT,36 five decisions of the WBAT,37 three judgements of the UNAdT38 and two decisions of the ADBAT.39 It relied on the jurisprudence of these tribunals in considering a variety of questions, including when it is appropriate to disclose the recruitment file to the applicant challenging the selection procedure,40 the standing of unsuccessful applicants to bring a claim to the tribunal,41 the discretion of the administration in selection decisions,42 and the relationship between that discretion and the terms of the vacancy announcement.43

In its 2010 Judgment in Ms. “EE”, concerning a staff member’s challenge to a misconduct investigation, the IMFAT cited other IATs fourteen times, including ten separate references to the WBAT,44 three to the ADBAT,45 and one to the UNAdT.46 For example, it cited to the UNAdT concerning the quasi-judicial nature of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions,47 and it looked to both the WBAT and the ADBAT for the scrutiny to be applied to the decision to place the staff member on administrative leave.48

In its 2012 Sachdev Judgment, the IMFAT also cited externally fourteen times, including nine decisions of the WBAT,49 four judgments of the ILOAT,50 and one decision of the ADBAT.51 The case concerned a challenge to a decision not to select the applicant for a post and a subsequent decision to abolish the post she encumbered.52 The Tribunal looked to the work of the WBAT and the ADBAT with respect to the review of selection decisions.53 It also looked at the jurisprudence of the WBAT, and to a lesser extent the ILOAT, in considering the question of reassignment in the case of redundancy.54

In GG (No. 2), the IMFAT cited six different cases of the WBAT,55 three of the ILOAT,56 three of the ADBAT,57 and one from the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (EUCST).58 These references were made in a wide range of areas, from the calculation of compensation awards to the evidence necessary to prove a harassment claim, among many others.59

In the 1999 case of Mr. “A”, 60 the IMFAT engaged in a highly detailed examination of the jurisprudence of no less than thirteen other IATs on the question of its jurisdiction over a contractual worker, reviewing six judgements of the UNAdT,61 five judgments of the ILOAT,62 one decision of the WBAT,63 and one of the ADBAT.64 The 2001 Judgment in Estate of Mr. “D” is also notable, in particular for its extensive use of the jurisprudence of the WBAT, referring to eleven different decisions of that tribunal.65 It also referred to two decisions of the ADBAT66 and two judgments of the ILOAT.67 The IMFAT found support in the decisions of these other IATs for the proposition that a decision of a Grievance Committee Chairman as to the timeliness of administrative review may be re-examined when assessing whether an applicant to the tribunal has met the exhaustion of remedies requirement of the tribunal’s statute.68 In the 2005 case of Mr. “F”,69 the IMFAT acknowledged at the outset that it was the first time it had considered a challenge by a staff member to the abolition of his post. It thus examined no fewer than thirteen decisions of the WBAT70 and five judgments of the ILOAT71 on the matter, concluding that “[t]he jurisprudence of administrative tribunals accordingly indicates that international organizations must make genuine, serious, and pro-active efforts in reassignment of their employees whose positions have been abolished.”72

In many other cases, the IMFAT cited other IATs extensively, such as its 2002 Judgment in Ms. “Y” (No. 2),73 citing nine external judgments; its 2006 Judgment in Ms. “AA” 74 and its 2011 Judgment in Pyne,75 each citing eight external judgments; as well as its 1996 Judgment in Mr. D’Aoust,76 its 1997 Judgment in Ms. “C”,77 and its 2007 Judgment in Daseking-Frank et al.,78 each citing seven external judgments.

3. United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT)

The UNDT was established, along with the UNAT (discussed below) on July 1, 200979 as part of a reform to replace the United Nations Administrative Tribunal,80 which had functioned since 1949.81 It hears cases brought by staff members and former staff members of the U.N. and its separately administered funds and programs, as well as certain other tribunals and entities.82 The UNDT has cited to the ILOAT on no fewer than 152 occasions and to the WBAT twenty-three times.83 It has also cited to the ADBAT,84 the AfDBAT,85 the IMFAT86 and the COEAT.87

Perhaps most notably, the UNDT made this explicit pronouncement on cross-fertilization between it and the ILOAT:

The Tribunal is of the view that although judgments from [the] ILOAT are not binding upon it, they have a persuasive value and warrant consideration, especially when they touch upon issues that affect the common system as a whole. A convergent and uniform interpretation of rules or legal principles applying all across the common system when the factual situations at hand raise similar legal issues is desirable and proper. In this respect, the Redesign Panel on the United Nations system of administration of justice stated in its report . . . that ‘there should be harmonization [of the UNAT and the ILOAT] jurisprudence . . . so as to ensure, so far as is practicable, equal treatment of the staff members of specialized agencies and those of the United Nations itself’.88

Turning to the actual evidence of cross-fertilization at the UNDT, it has cited to other tribunals so frequently that an exhaustive treatment is not possible. Instead, this section will focus on examples where the UNDT’s reference to the jurisprudence of other IATs was particularly extensive or otherwise significant. These examples show a tribunal with a developed practice of cross-fertilization, including citing to the same judgment of a sister tribunal repeatedly and citing to other tribunals even when a citation to its own jurisprudence would have been available.

For example, the UNDT has cited to the same judgment of the ILOAT on thirty-seven separate occasions to explain the operation of the doctrine of res judicata, in particular in the context of an order concerning the withdrawal of an application.89 Similarly, in Hassanin, concerning the lawfulness of a decision to terminate a staff member’s permanent contract, the UNDT included a section in its judgment entitled “overview of relevant case law” in which, after reviewing the case-law of the UNDT, UNAT, and UNAdT, it considered the jurisprudence of the ILOAT in detail.90 The UNDT continued to review this ILOAT case law in its judgments in Crotty, Alsado, Wright, Fasanella, Smith and Zachariah.91

While it is easy to understand why an IAT would cite to a sister tribunal when it faces an issue of first impression, the practice of systematically citing to the jurisprudence of another tribunal evidences a more important phenomenon. Rather than citing to itself after it has established a proposition the first time, the fact that the UNDT has continued citing to a judgment of the ILOAT for as fundamental a concept as the definition of res judicata, or as common an issue in administrative law as termination of contract, can leave little doubt that cross-fertilization is becoming a more common and accepted practice.

In a series of cases involving hundreds of applicants contesting the organization’s decision to implement a post adjustment multiplier determined by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) resulting in a substantial pay cut,92 the UNDT cited several judgments of the ILOAT,93 in particular Judgment 4134 in which ILO staff members were contesting the application of the same post adjustment multiplier in that organization.94 This case would seem to mark an important moment in the growth of a regime of cross-fertilization between IATs, in which two separate IATs within the U.N. common system treated a common question and the second to address the question overtly relied on the analysis of the first. In fact, the second tribunal to consider the question, the UNDT, even allowed the parties to submit additional pleadings on the relevance of the ILOAT Judgment to their cases.95

Likewise, in a series of cases by multiple applicants challenging the 2017 unified salary scale,96 the UNDT relied substantially on the jurisprudence of the ILOAT in its analysis of several issues, including the staff member’s right of access to justice,97 the reviewability of administrative decisions implementing decisions adopted by the General Assembly or ICSC,98 and the principle of acquired rights.99

In Bertucci, the UNDT considered whether the deliberations of a selection committee for a high-level post could be disclosed in order to determine whether the committee had been influenced by unproven allegations which were circulating in the public media.100 In its analysis of the question, the UNDT analyzed the jurisprudence of the ILOAT in great detail, spending over five pages reviewing six key ILOAT cases.101 It concluded that “the thrust of these judgments is . . . that the relevant material should be provided to the Tribunal, if not to the staff member”102 and it went on to follow this approach.103

Multiple cases can also be identified where the UNDT referred to other IATs to establish relatively simple propositions which could have been established by reference to its own jurisprudence or by reasoning on first principles.104 This is cross-fertilization in its most natural form: rather than a case where the Tribunal is obliged to rely on the jurisprudence of others to fill a gap in its own case-law, here there was substantial internal relevant case-law, which the tribunal reviewed, and it went on to review the work of other tribunals nevertheless. One sees this for example in Wilson, where the UNDT seems to intersperse references to ILOAT case-law with its review of UNDT and UNAT case law, as if it is all coming from the same jurisprudential system.105

4. United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT)

The UNAT was established on July 1, 2009, as the appellate level of jurisdiction in the new U.N. internal justice system,106 hearing appeals primarily from the UNDT and also from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) Dispute Tribunal. The UNAT has cited other IATs on some thirty occasions. These references are almost exclusively limited to judgments of the ILOAT—a somewhat ironic situation given the fact that the ILOAT almost never cites to the judgments of the U.N. internal justice system. The UNAT has referred to and followed judgments of the ILOAT in a wide variety of areas, including: due process rights,107 the principle of acquired rights,108 and the power of the organization to abolish  posts,109 among many others.110 The UNAT decided in Sanwidi, however, that the jurisprudence of its predecessor the UNAdT, though of persuasive value, cannot be a binding precedent for the new Tribunals to follow.111

5. Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (ADBAT)

The ADBAT was established in 1991 to hear cases brought by staff members of the Bank alleging non-observance of their contracts or terms of employment. It has rendered 128 decisions to date.112 The ADBAT refers to other IATs frequently, with more than a third of its decisions referencing at least one other tribunal. Most of these references were to the jurisprudence of the ILOAT and, to a certain extent, to the WBAT and the UNadT. Interestingly, despite this history of referring to the UNAdT, the ADBAT has referred hardly at all to the UNDT or UNAT in the new U.N. internal justice system.

From its first Decision in Lindsey, when the ADBAT was discussing sources of law, it stated that it would reason “by analogy, from the staff practices of international organizations generally, including the decisions of international administrative tribunals dealing with comparable situations.”113 It went on to add that “[t]here is, in this sphere, a large measure of ‘common’ law of international organizations to which, according to the circumstances, the Tribunal will give due weight.”114 Although less celebrated than the WBAT’s similar pronouncement in de Merode, one cannot help but notice the similar approach: both tribunals clearly accept and even seem to encourage a practice of cross-fertilization.

There are several decisions of the ADBAT which stand out for the extent to which the Tribunal referred to other IATs. In Mesch and Siy (No. 4), the ADBAT cited extensively to the WBAT, the ILOAT, the UNAdT, and the former OECD Appeals Board .115 In Perrin, et al., in which 122 staff members challenged changes to the education grant scheme, the ADBAT engaged in an extensive review of the jurisprudence of the ILOAT, the WBAT, and the UNAdT.116 It also cited the UNAT for the proposition that IATs can raise issues sua sponte117 and the ILOAT when discussing when joinder of cases is appropriate.118

In Eisuke Suzuki et al., the ADBAT cited several different IATs in considering whether the ADB could treat staff members and pensioners differently with respect to medical insurance coverage.119 The Tribunal applied the four-part test of the IMFAT to determine when differential treatment of two groups is justified,120 substantiating this with additional examples from the jurisprudence of the WBAT.121 In the same decision, it referred to the ILOAT for the proposition that the ADB could reserve its rights to change the terms of its medical plan.122 It also referred to the de Merode Decision of the WBAT, ultimately concluding that the ADB’s actions conformed with the requirements of that decision, in that changes to conditions of employment should be made only after careful consideration and adequate consultation.123

In Amora, the ADBAT cited multiple ILOAT judgments and distinguished UNAdT judgements in its conclusion that a staff member’s series of short-term contracts did not reflect the true nature of his employment relationship and he should thus be entitled to pension benefits.124 In Alcartado, even after concluding on the basis of its own case law that grievances must be submitted within prescribed time limits, it nevertheless bolstered its conclusion by references to judgments of the ILOAT and decisions of the WBAT.125 In Agliam, it cited to the ILOAT, WBAT and UNAdT for the proposition that the head of an international organization has discretion to transfer its staff.126

The ADBAT has often cited other administrative tribunals when considering disciplinary cases. In Abat, for example, it cited to the jurisprudence of the ILOAT, the WBAT, the UNAT and the UNAdT for multiple propositions.127 What is interesting about this case is that the Tribunal chose to cite to the jurisprudence of other IATs for relatively common propositions of international administrative law¾such as that in disciplinary cases a tribunal should not substitute its discretion or assessment for that of the Director General128 ¾propositions which could surely have been found within its own jurisprudence.

The same phenomenon can be observed in Gnanathurai, another disciplinary case also citing the ILOAT, WBAT and the former UNAdT.129 In support of the proposition that administrative disciplinary proceedings require a lower standard of proof than applies in criminal cases, the ADBAT cited first to a judgement of the UNAdT, before referring to one of its own decisions and an ADB administrative issuance, both of which support the same proposition. It then went on to cite yet another judgement of the UNAdT.130 The ADBAT also cited the ILOAT, WBAT and UNAdT in other disciplinary cases, including Zaidi,131 Bristol,132 Chaudhry,133 and Ms. M.134 In other disciplinary cases, it cited to two of those tribunals.135

In a great many other decisions, the ADBAT has cited to at least one decision of another IAT, including those of the ILOAT,136 WBAT,137 OECDAT,138 IMFAT,139 and UNAdT.140

6. Council of Europe Administrative Tribunal (COEAT)

The COEAT was established in 1965 to resolve disputes brought by staff members of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe Development Bank alleging violations of their contracts or terms of employment.141 It has heard 738 cases to date.142

The COEAT is notable for the extent to which it has cited the ILOAT. For example, in Yuksek (II), it cited to the ILOAT on ten different occasions in a single decision. This was for a wide range of propositions, including that the administration should be flexible when determining whether a communication from a staff member constitutes a request to review an administrative decision,143 the right of staff members to information,144 the duty of the organization to provide staff members with procedural guidance,145 the right of every candidate for a post to have his or her application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition,146 the duty of appointments panels to act impartially,147 the necessary standard of proof to establish bias,148 the duty of a decision-maker to withdraw in situations where impartiality may be open to question,149 and the extent of the principal of res judicata.150 Clearly, many of these propositions could be supported with precedents in the relatively large jurisprudence of the COEAT.151 Yet, in this same decision, the Tribunal cited to its own jurisprudence on only four occasions.152 The fact that the Tribunal chose instead to cite repeatedly to the ILOAT shows indeed just how far the use of cross-fertilization has come.

The COEAT has also cited the ILOAT for many other propositions, including access to justice,153 acquired rights,154 the principle of equal pay for equal work,155 and the definition of “spouse”,156 to name only a few.157

The COEAT has also occasionally cited to the OECDAT.158 Like several other tribunals, the COEAT has cited to the UNAdT on multiple occasions159 but only rarely to the new U.N. internal justice system.160 Finally, the COEAT has cited to the NATOAT on two occasions,161 the only IAT yet to have done so.

7. African Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (AfDBAT)

The AfDBAT was established in 1998 “to hear and pass judgment upon any application by a staff member contesting an administrative decision for non-observance of the contract of employment or terms of appointment of such staff member.”162 It has rendered 163 judgments to date.163

References to the case law of other IATs in the jurisprudence of the AfDBAT are numerous. Indeed, a review of its jurisprudence revealed 118 references to the ILOAT, fifty-one references to the WBAT, fifteen references to the UNAdT, nine references to the IMFAT, six references to the ADBAT, two references to the UNDT, and one reference to the UNAT.164 As we have seen with other IATs, there appears to be a noticeable hesitancy to cite the UNDT/UNAT, compared with their predecessor the UNAdT, which the AfDBAT has regularly cited.

Among the AfDBAT Judgments referring to the jurisprudence of other IATs, a few stand out for the sheer number and breadth of citations they contain. The most significant of these is the D.S.A. Judgment in 2019, in which the Tribunal cited to no fewer than fourteen different decisions of other IATs. In the case, which concerned a challenge to a decision of the Bank to separate the applicant following the abolition of his post, the AfDBAT cited to the WBAT and the ILOAT concerning the scope of its power of review,165 to the WBAT for the standard to determine whether there was a legal basis for the respondent to abolish the position,166 to the ILOAT for the proposition that IATs have recognized a general principle that an organization may not immediately terminate a staff member whose post has been abolished if the staff member holds an appointment of indeterminate duration,167 to the IMFAT for evidence of an obligation to attempt to reassign staff members whose post has been abolished,168 and to the ILOAT concerning the discretion of the head of the administration to accept or reject recommendations made by an Appeals Committee.169 It looked to the jurisprudence of both the WBAT and the ILOAT for the test to determine whether an abolition of post was “genuine”170 and for the mechanisms with which the administration must comply when reassigning staff members whose posts have been abolished.171

Several other cases also stand out for their extensive reliance on the jurisprudence of other IATs. In T.K., the AfDBAT cited to the UNAdT, WBAT, IMFAT and multiple judgments of the ILOAT for the proposition that it is an established general rule of international administrative law that the assignment of grades to posts constitutes an exercise of discretionary power, which can only be overturned by a tribunal if abusive, arbitrary or based on significant procedural or substantive errors.172 In Ms. C.A.W., it cited to multiple decisions of the WBAT and judgments of the ILOAT to support its conclusion that there is a requirement in international administrative law that, before terminating a staff member, even during the probationary period, the administration must provide reasons and give the staff member an opportunity to defend him or herself.173 In Mr. N.O., a case in which a staff member was contesting his summary dismissal for serious misconduct, it cited to the jurisprudence of the ADBAT and UNAdT for the proposition that once a prima facie case has been established, the burden switches to the staff member to prove his or her innocence.174 It then looked to the jurisprudence of the WBAT to determine whether the sanction of summary dismissal was proportionate.175 In D.T., it cited to the ILOAT to establish the requirements for an issue to be res judicata, to the WBAT for reviewability of a decision by the President and to the UNAdT for how to measure discrimination.176

In a further six cases, the AfDBAT has cited to at least two other IATs in the course of its judgment.177 In an additional seven cases, it has cited two or more decisions of another IAT.178 And in some twenty other judgments, it has cited to at least one other IAT,179 for a great variety of different propositions, ranging from jurisdiction ratione personae over external candidates to a selection procedure (citing the ILOAT),180 to the binding nature of a negotiated settlement (citing the WBAT),181 to causing reputational damage to the institution as a grounds for summary dismissal (citing the ADBAT),182 to the prohibition of discrimination (citing the UNAdT),183 to the obligation to attempt to reassign staff members following the abolition of their posts (citing the IMFAT).184

B. Tribunals Regularly Practicing Cross-Fertilization

While not engaging in the practice of cross-fertilization as frequently as those tribunals discussed in the previous section, there is a second group of IATs that is nonetheless notable for the regularity with which they have come to cite each other. This subsection reviews the jurisprudence of those tribunals, including the NATO Administrative Tribunal (NATOAT), the OECD Administrative Tribunal (OECDAT), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Administrative Tribunal (EBRDAT), The Commonwealth Secretariat Administrative Tribunal (CSAT), the European Space Agency Administrative Tribunal (ESAAT), and the Bank for International Settlements Administrative Tribunal (BISAT).

1. NATO Administrative Tribunal (NATOAT)

The NATOAT was established in 2013 and is competent to decide any individual dispute brought by a NATO staff member or retired staff member alleging that an administrative decision is not in compliance with the NATO Civilian Personnel Regulations or the terms of his or her appointment.185 In its first ten years of operation, it rendered 185 judgments.186 The NATOAT has cited to other tribunals with relative regularity, including forty-five references to the ILOAT, twenty-six references to the WBAT, twenty-one references to the COEAT, nine references to the ESAAT, and four references to the UNAT.187

In one notable judgment involving three parallel cases, each with numerous applicants, the NATOAT reviewed the jurisprudence of multiple IATs (including twelve judgments of the ILOAT, seven of the WBAT, as well as decisions of the COEAT and the Appeals Board of the ESA) for the widely accepted proposition that a decision of a legislative body cannot be reviewed by an administrative tribunal, absent an administrative decision applying it in the context of an individual case.188 It is interesting that the Tribunal would go to such lengths to cite other IATs for such a universally accepted proposition of international administrative law, especially after beginning with a quotation from its own jurisprudence supporting the proposition. Many of these same judgments, moreover, have been cited for this proposition by the ADBAT.189 Thus, once again, one is left with the feeling that IATs are increasingly citing other Tribunals not so much to fill a gap in their own jurisprudence, or in cases of high uncertainty, but rather in a building momentum of shared jurisprudence creation.

Also of note is the JF Judgment, in which the NATOAT declared that “[t]here is consensus among international administrative tribunals that a decision in the exercise of discretion is subject to only limited review by a tribunal” and that “tribunals will not substitute their own view for the organizations’ assessments,” supporting these statements with case law from the ILOAT and WBAT before concluding that “[t]he NATO Administrative Tribunal concurs with these approaches.”190 These WBAT cases, it might be noted, have also been cited by the ADBAT.191 The NATOAT further cited to the ILOAT and WBAT in the specific context of discretion involving probationary employees.192 It cited to the ILOAT with respect to the administration’s discretion to determine the severity of a disciplinary measure193 and the obligation to provide reasons for an administrative decision. 194 Finally, in determining what precedential value to give to the jurisprudence of the former NATO Appeals Board, the NATOAT looked to a judgment of the UNAT which examined this question with respect to the UNAdT.195

2. OECD Administrative Tribunal (OECDAT)

The OECDAT was set up in its present form in 1992, replacing the OECD's Appeals Board, as an independent body with jurisdiction to rule on disputes between members of staff (or other qualified persons) and the Secretary-General.196 It has considered 107 cases to date.197 The OECDAT cites other IATs regularly, including forty-three references to the ILOAT, six references to the ADBAT, two references to the UNDT, four references to the UNAT, three references to the COEAT, and one reference to the WBAT.198

The OECDAT carried out its most exhaustive examination of the jurisprudence of other IATs in two parallel cases concerning an increase in health insurance premiums of former staff members, Ms. AA and Mr. KK. The Tribunal found that while the applicants may have had an acquired right to health insurance, they had no acquired right to continue paying the same premium for that health insurance.199 It supported this conclusion with a review of multiple judgments of the ILOAT and decisions of the COEAT as well as a decision of the ADBAT.200

One begins to see the growth of an interconnected system of cross-fertilization here, the ADBAT decision cited by the OECDAT having itself cited one of the ILOAT cases cited by the OECDAT for the same proposition.201

In several other judgments, the OECDAT has cited to more than one other IAT. For example, in Mr. AA, the OECDAT cited multiple judgments of the ILOAT, decisions of the WBAT and judgements of the UNAdT.202 This is particularly interesting since, in many cases a citation to its internal law was possible, or no citation was strictly necessary. For example, for the proposition that the Secretary-General had the option of asking the Tribunal to substitute compensation for reinstatement in the Organisation, the OECDAT cited to its own Statute¾which clearly would have sufficed¾but bolstered this with citations to judgments of the ILOAT and the UNAdT.203

Like many other IATs, the OECDAT regularly cites to the jurisprudence of the ILOAT. The most significant of these is anonymous Judgment No. 79, in which the OECDAT reviewed some twenty cases of the ILOAT defining the notion of material error.204 It has also cited to the ILOAT in Mr. W (concerning immunities of staff members),205 another Mr. W Judgment (concerning the jurisdiction to assess the proportionality of a dismissal as a sanction),206 Mr. E (pension benefits),207 Anonymous Judgment number 73 (discretionary authority of the administration),208 and AA (concerning which acts constitute administrative decisions).209 Also notable is the OECDAT’s citation to the COEAT in Mr. D to show the application of a provision on the postponement of adjustments to the salary scale.210 The fact that the Tribunal also cited to one of its own judgments for the same proposition demonstrates that it is not citing other IATs to fill a gap, but rather because it feels that it is appropriate to do so and that there is a value add by citing an additional tribunal, even when an internal precedent is squarely on point. This can only be considered evidence of a nascent shared jurisprudence of international administrative law.

3. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Administrative Tribunal (EBRDAT)

The EBRDAT was constituted as an administrative tribunal in its current form in 2007.211 It hears appeals against administrative decisions once staff members have exhausted all appropriate channels for review under the administrative review process in place at the Bank.212 From its inception to date, it has rendered fifty-one judgments.213

The EBRDAT regularly references the jurisprudence of other IATs. Indeed, in an early case, Mr. C, the EBRDAT referred to multiple judgments and decisions of the IMFAT, ADBAT, ILOAT, and WBAT concerning what constituted unjustified discrimination and when express differentiation can be justified, 214 concluding that differentiation was justified only when it was rationally related to its purpose and proportionate to the achievement of that purpose.215 It went so far as to state that its understanding, on the basis of the cases of these other IATs, constituted “its understanding of international administrative law.”216 Thus, one can really feel a tribunal, in its first case, attempting to derive international administrative law from its sister tribunals.

The most exhaustive use of case law from other IATs by the EBRDAT came in a 2019 case concerning a long-term independent contractor for the Bank whose contract was not renewed.217 Following a lengthy analysis of numerous judgments and decisions of the ILOAT, IMFAT, ADBAT, and WBAT,218 the EBRD ultimately distinguished these cases on the facts, concluding that the individual in question had freely negotiated the terms of the contract as an independent contractor.219 One could argue that this also represents a high degree of cross-fertilization since, if the cases are distinguishable on the facts, there was all the more reason for the Tribunal to avoid citing them in the first place, but it chose to engage with them.

In a series of other cases in 2019, the EBRDAT considered whether it had jurisdiction to consider a claim by an external consultant that he was a de facto staff member of the Bank, even though the EBRADAT’s jurisdiction is limited to claims brought by staff members.220 The majority opinion concluded that it did have jurisdiction, citing judgments of the ILOAT and decisions of the ADBAT as support.221 However, detailed dissenting opinions in two of the cases distinguished those external precedents, pointing to other judgments of the ILOAT and other IATs that reached the opposite conclusion.222 What is notable for present purposes is that both the majority and dissenting opinions accept the relevance of the jurisprudence of other IATs, using some external precedents as support and distinguishing others on their specific facts; in no case do they simply disregard them as external law.

In addition to these prominent examples engaging with the jurisprudence of other IATs, the EBRDAT often includes at least one reference to another IAT in its decisions. It has cited the ILOAT on several other occasions, frequently providing multiple references to that tribunal.223 It also regularly cites to the WBAT.224 Occasionally, it cites to other tribunals, such as the UNDT,225 the UNAT,226 and the IMFAT.227 Thus, through its detailed engagement in a number of decisions¾both by the majority and the dissent and both relying on and distinguishing external precedents¾and its consistent reliance on other IATs throughout the course of its jurisprudence, the EBRDAT has regularly embraced cross-fertilization.

4. Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT)

The CSAT was established in 1995 to hear applications brought by staff members of the Commonwealth Secretariat, by the Commonwealth Secretariat itself, and by any person who enters into a contract with the Commonwealth Secretariat.228 The CSAT also regularly refers to the case law of other IATs. Indeed, in its forty-three judgments, the CSAT has cited other IATs in no fewer than thirty-one of them.229

The CSAT cites to the ILOAT almost as fluidly as it does to its own jurisprudence. In the A. K. case, for example, the Tribunal cited twelve different ILOAT judgments, including well-known cases such as the celebrated Bustani Judgment.230 It also cited to ILOAT judgments in the context of more routine matters, such as the need to provide evidence beyond mere allegations to prove the existence of discrimination, for which the Tribunal cited to five ILOAT cases,231 and claims of constructive dismissal, for which the Tribunal also cited to five ILOAT judgments.232 In the Saroha case, it cited six ILOAT judgments in the course of its four-page Judgment. 233 In deciding whether compensation should be awarded for procedural error, the Tribunal stated that it “has found it helpful to look at the developing jurisprudence of other international Tribunals who have made awards of compensation for such irregularity,”234 citing to four ILOAT judgments for this guidance and concluding that “international Administrative Tribunals frequently consider procedural errors arising from claims before them, and do award compensation for such errors.”235 Following a review of two other ILOAT cases, it concluded that “it is the accepted practice of International Administrative Tribunals to award cost on a discretionary basis”.236 Mention could also be made of the Faruqi Judgment, where the CSAT referred to two ILOAT judgments to support the proposition that a tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the terms of its Statute and the other instruments under which it has been established.237 In nine other judgments, the CSAT cited to at least one and often multiple ILOAT judgments.238

While the CSAT appears to have a marked preference for the ILOAT, it would be wrong to assume that the CSAT cites exclusively to that tribunal. To the contrary, from its third Judgment, it adopted the pronouncement by the WBAT in de Merode that it “is free to take note of solutions worked out in sufficiently comparable conditions by other administrative Tribunals . . . ”.239 This comes through in the CSAT jurisprudence, in which the Tribunal regularly makes reference to multiple IATs in the context of a single judgment.240 It is also worth making special note of two decisions of other IATs that the CSAT has cited repeatedly, the de Merode Decision of the WBAT, which the CSAT has cited in six of its judgments,241 and the Ballo Judgment of the ILOAT, which the CSAT has cited in five different cases.242   Finally, as with other IATs, one is again struck by how much more the Tribunal cited to the UNAdT than it has to the new U.N. internal justice system.

5. European Space Agency Administrative Tribunal (ESAAT)

The ESAAT was established as an Appeals Board in in 1975 and, despite its name, already functioned from that time as an independent tribunal providing for the settlement of disputes arising between the Agency and staff members or experts in respect of their conditions of service.243 It was renamed as an Administrative Tribunal in 2021 and has rendered 139 judgments from 1975 to the present.244

The ESAAT has cited to other tribunals with relative frequency and is also notable for citing to a wide variety of different tribunals. A review of its jurisprudence from its first case as an Appeals Board concluded in 1976 to the present revealed fourteen references to the ILOAT, five references to the EUMETS Appeals Board, four references to the COEAT, three references to the OECDAT, two references to the NATOAT, and one reference each to the WBAT, the UNAdT, the ADBAT, and the UNDT.245

In the G e.a. case, the Tribunal considered whether a change in the method for adjusting pensions affected acquired rights of pensioners.246 It is interesting to note that the Tribunal first referred to the definition of acquired rights in the ILOAT jurisprudence before going on to cite its own jurisprudence on the same matter.247 In reaching the conclusion that the method for adjusting pensions was not part of the essentials of an employment relationship, the Tribunal cited to the ILOAT, COEAT, NATOAT, and OECDAT.248 Similarly, in Buenadicha et al., the Tribunal again considered a challenge to the method for adjusting pensions and, during its discussion of acquired rights, it cited no less than five other IATs.249 In still another case concerning the changes to the method for adjusting pensions, the ESSAAT concluded that the applicants, as active staff members, had no personal rights that were directly affected and thus found the application inadmissible, basing this conclusion on decisions of the COEAT, OECDAT, and EUMETSAT.250

In Buenadicha, Gabriel and Hernadez, the ESAAT cited and quoted numerous judgments of the ILOAT to support its conclusion that the principle of non-retroactivity was a general principle of law to be applied in the case.251 Indeed, the Tribunal often cites to the ILOAT, having done so in over ten other cases as well.252

The Tribunal has regularly cited to the Sawelew judgment of the EUMETSAT for the proposition that applicants for a staff position have standing before the competent Appeals Board or Administrative Tribunal.253 Finally, it has also occasionally cited the OECDAT,254 AfDBAT,255 WBAT,256 and UNDT.257

6. Bank for International Settlements Administrative Tribunal (BISAT)

The BISAT was established in 1987 to settle any dispute in matters of employment relations that may arise between the Bank and its officials or former officials, or persons claiming through them.258 From its inception to the current date, it has rendered only ten judgments.259 In this small jurisprudence, one nevertheless finds seventeen references to the ILOAT, two references to the UNDT, five references to the UNAT, five references to the WBAT, two references to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and two references to the UNAdT.260 It interesting to note that, contrary to the trend seen across other tribunals, the BISAT has cited the tribunals of the new U.N. internal justice system much more extensively than the former UNAdT.

The BISAT Judgment in case 1/2018 stands out as a particularly salient example of cross-fertilization. The lengthy Judgment concerning an individual who separated from the organization under disputed circumstances contains multiple references to the jurisprudence of the ILOAT, UNDT, UNAT, WBAT, and the General Court of the CJEU. The Tribunal refers to jurisprudence of the ILOAT and WBAT in its analysis of the validity of the separation agreement.261 It cites to judgments of the ILOAT in addressing a question of estoppel,262 an argument of constructive dismissal,263 the principle that the staff member is deemed to have knowledge of the applicable staff rules,264 the obligation of the administration to state reasons for a non-renewal,265 the substance of the organization’s duty of care,266 and the nature of the principle of equality.267 It cites to the UNDT, UNAT, and the ILOAT when considering the existence of a challengeable administrative decision.268 It cites to the UNAT and the General Court of the CJEU when discussing incidents for which an award of compensation is appropriate.269 It cites to the UNDT and UNAT when examining burden of proof,270 abuse of discretion,271 and the principle of equal treatment.272 And finally, it cites to the WBAT with respect to the applicability of waiver clauses.273 Indeed, when these citations to other tribunals are considered cumulatively, the BISAT has cited to other IATs in this judgment around twice as frequently as it has cited to its own jurisprudence.

It is also worth noting that the BISAT has included at least one reference to the jurisprudence of the ILOAT in virtually every judgment it has rendered, on a great variety of different subjects, including what constitutes injury to a staff member,274 the principle of equality,275 the determination of whether a position is existing or newly created,276 the discretion of the administration in selection decisions,277 the discretion of the administration to confirm or not a provisional appointment,278 the non-applicability of discretion when based on incorrect facts,279 the inability of the administration to alter fundamental conditions of employment,280 and the requirement that the administration act with reasonable discretion in taking account of its financial interests.281

C. Tribunals Employing Cross-Fertilization Least Frequently

Having reviewed the numerous tribunals that engage in cross-fertilization frequently or at least regularly in the past two subsections, this subsection rounds out the picture by reviewing the relatively few tribunals that have been most hesitant to engage in this practice. This includes the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT), the Organization of American States Administrative Tribunal (OASAT), and the Inter-American Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (IDBAT).

1. International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT)

The ILOAT is the oldest continuously functioning administrative tribunal, having been established as the administrative tribunal of the League of Nations on September 26, 1927282 , serving the League itself and the International Labour Organization (ILO), which had been created in 1919.283 When the League was dissolved in 1946, the Tribunal was transferred to the ILO, which became a specialized agency of the U.N.284 In 1949, Article II of the Statute  of the ILOAT was amended to permit other international organizations to accept the Tribunal’s jurisdiction285 . At the time of this writing, fifty-eight organizations have done so,286 giving the ILOAT a breadth of membership (in terms of type, size, and variety of organizations served) not seen by any other international administrative tribunal.

The ILOAT has cited other IATs extremely sparingly. Indeed, it has emphasized that it “develops its own case law which takes account of the fundamental rights enjoyed by civil servants and the general principles of the international civil service” but that “it is in no way bound by the case law of other international courts.”287

The ILOAT has actually referred to a judgment of another international tribunal on its own initiative in only two cases. In Ms L.S. v. Eurocontrol, which concerned the denial of reimbursement of medical expenses, the ILOAT followed the practice of the EUCST (without providing a specific case reference) in concluding that the criteria for reimbursement were interdependent and need not all be satisfied.288 In Application for the suspension of the execution of Judgment 2867, it referred to the general practice of the UNDT and UNAT (again without citing a specific case) for the proposition that it could not decide on a stay of execution of its own judgment, since “it is normally the court handling the appeal against the judgment in question which is competent to decide on a request for a stay of execution of the judgment.”289

It is certainly striking how rarely the ILOAT has cited to other tribunals, particularly when viewed against the robust growth of this practice within virtually all other tribunals as detailed in the present work. One can only speculate on the reasons for this, but it could be the case that as the most established tribunal with the largest jurisprudence on which to draw, it simply does not need to look to the work of its peers as often as they need to look to its pronouncements. A more pessimistic view would be that it is stubbornly maintaining an outdated practice while other tribunals have modernized. Whatever the reason, an ironic situation has been created, with the ILOAT being the tribunal far and away the most often cited by others but the least likely to cite others itself.

2. Organization of American States Administrative Tribunal (OASAT)

The OASAT was established in 1971 to hear disputes between the Organization of American States (OAS) General Secretariat and members of its staff alleging nonobservance of the terms and conditions of their employment.290 It has rendered 414 judgments to date.291

The OASAT has cited to other IATs occasionally, in particular the WBAT and the ILOAT and on one occasion the IMFAT. For example, in Gómez Pulido, the OASAT cited the WBAT for the proposition that a suspension of a staff member must be carried out scrupulously and in accordance with the due process of law required by the international legal order.292 In Brunetti et al., it cited to the de Merode Decision of the WBAT for the proposition that the method of computing tax reimbursement is not an acquired right.293 In Romero and Folgate, it cited the WBAT’s de Merode Decision and several ILOAT cases for this proposition and the proposition that staff members may be ordered to repay overpayments made by the administration.294 In Bangha, the Tribunal cited and distinguished a judgment of the ILOAT concerning detrimental reliance on the conditions of employment.295 In Hebblethwaite et al., by contrast, the OASAT cited the ILOAT approvingly, stating that:

On the basis of the jurisprudence established by the Tribunal of the International Labor Organization, which is one of the most important sources of legal doctrine on the question of the employment relationship of the staff of international organizations, and in view of the opinion of this Tribunal as to the circumstances surrounding these cases, it must be held that the administrative decision to terminate the Complainants’ employment injured them by violating the principle of non-retroactivity and infringing rights deriving from standards that were an integral part of the conditions of their employment.296

In the same Judgment, the OASAT went on to quote large sections of another judgment of the ILOAT in order to distinguish two types of provisions in Staff Regulations and Rules: on the one hand, provisions concerning the structure and functioning of the international civil service which are statutory in character and may be modified at any time in the interest of the service, subject to the principle of non-retroactivity; and, on the other hand, provisions which appertain to the individual terms and conditions of an official, which may be modified only to the extent that they do not infringe the essential terms in consideration of which the official accepted appointment.297 The OASAT further quoted this same Judgment for this distinction between provisions in its Pando Judgment.298 Finally, in Cárdenas, the OASAT quoted a large passage from a judgment of the IMFAT concerning the principle of the exhaustion of local remedies, even after quoting its own caselaw on the same point.299

3. Inter-American Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (IDBAT)

The IDBAT was established in 1981 to resolve disputes between the Bank and its staff members.300 It has issued 103 judgments to date.301 References to the jurisprudence of other IATs by the IDBAT are quite limited—it having cited to a decision of another IAT in only about ten of its first 100 judgments. Those ten cases evidence a clear preference of the IDBAT for the jurisprudence of the WBAT. Indeed, while most of the other Tribunals reviewed cite most frequently to the ILOAT, the IDBAT has done so exclusively on only one occasion.302 In two other cases, it included a citation to the ILOAT alongside citations to the WBAT, one of which citing additionally to the ADBAT.303 Every other time the IDBAT has cited externally, however, those citations have been exclusively to the jurisprudence of the WBAT, to which it has referred for a wide variety of propositions.304

It is unclear why the IDBAT, and the OASAT, have cited to other IATs so rarely. It is worth considering, however, whether the physical location of these tribunals¾both located in Washington, D.C. and thus distant from many of their sister tribunals located in Europe and elsewhere¾may be a factor. This could also explain why, when the IDBAT has cited externally, it has done so exclusively to the WBAT, another tribunal located in Washington, D.C. Similarly, the OASAT has shown a preference for the WBAT and another Washington, D.C.-based tribunal, the IMFAT.

4. Other administrative tribunals

There are only a few other tribunals which have rarely cited to their peers. This is the case, for example, with the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, which seems content to rely almost exclusively on those other tribunals within the same jurisdictional system (in particular, the UNAT, but also the UNDT and the former UNAdT). When it has cited further afield, these have been exclusively to the ILOAT, which it has done on seven occasions.305 A similar remark could be made about the European Schools Complaints Board (which functions as an administrative tribunal with respect to staff cases): It has cited relatively frequently to the CJEU and the former EUCST,306 but never to another administrative tribunal.

The General Court of the CJEU, carrying out the role of administrative tribunal for EU staff since September 2016, has been categorical that the jurisprudence of other IATs is not applicable before it. In its 2017 Judgment in Arango Jaramillo, it stated that the jurisprudence of the ILOAT did not constitute a source of EU law and thus could not be invoked except as evidence of a rule or principle recognized in EU law.307 It thus followed the practice of the former EUCST, which refused to apply the jurisprudence of the ILOAT, stating that “it must be observed that that case-law does not, as such, constitute a source of European Union law.”308

The Tribunal de première instance of the Organisation international de la francophonie (OIF) has also been reticent to cite to other IATs. While it has cited to ILOAT judgments in five cases out of its thirty-seven-case jurisprudence,309 the only other IAT it has ever cited was to the OECDAT in a recent case.310 The Tribunal d’Appel of the OIF, by contrast, appears more willing than the Tribunal de première instance to cite to other IATs. In this vein, it has cited to the ILOAT in over half of its Judgments,311 to the OECDAT on three occasions,312 as well as once each to the WBAT, UNDT, and UNAdT.313

The CARICOM administrative tribunal, established in 2020, began its inaugural decision with an analysis of the “law applied by the tribunal,” observing that the preamble to its statute affirmed that its decisions “shall be consistent with the principles of fundamental human rights and taken in accordance with international administrative law.”314 It then identified the decisions of other international administrative tribunals, as far as they were consistent with customary international law, as one of the three sources of international administrative law.315 In considering the substance of the complaint, it went on to cite over fifteen decisions of a wide variety of other IATs for diverse points of law, including abuse of discretion, due process, and non-discrimination.316 While it is too early to draw any conclusions given that this tribunal has only rendered this one decision so far, it certainly seems to have gotten off to a good start, with this initial decision reminiscent of the WBAT’s initial de Merode Decision and the ADBAT’s initial Lindsey Decision.

Finally, a select few tribunals have not cited to other tribunals at all. This is the case for the very small jurisprudence of the MERCOSUR Administrative317 and the EUMETSAT Appeals Board.318

III. Examination of the Question by Reference to the Most Influential Cases

While the previous section engaged in an exhaustive examination of cross-fertilization by reference to the jurisprudence of each tribunal, this section seeks to view the question from a different angle, through an examination of the most influential cases in terms of number of times they have been cited by other IATs and the quantity of other IATs citing to them. Whereas the previous section provided an overall picture of the current state and frequency of cross-fertilization, this section aims to complete the picture by providing more context, in particular the subject matter of the judgments being referred to most often by other IATs and the legal propositions which are most prone to cross-fertilization.

A. The Most Cited Judgments of International Administrative Tribunals

The present subsection discusses the ten most cited IAT judgments. While the WBAT easily holds the top spot with its highly influential de Merode Decision, it is striking to note that eight of the other judgments in the top ten were handed down by the ILOAT. Thus, one gains a clear impression that, in terms of most influential jurisprudence, the ILOAT is the leader, alongside the WBAT due to its first seminal decision. The only other IAT which retains a spot in the top ten is the ADBAT with its Amora decision in the ninth position. These decisions, and the propositions for which they have been cited, are examined below.

1. de Merode et al. v. World Bank (WBAT, 1981)

When it comes to cross-fertilization among IATs, there is no more significant and celebrated decision than the 1981 de Merode Decision of the WBAT, the first decision rendered by that Tribunal. The case concerned whether the implementation of decisions of the Executive Director regarding tax reimbursement and salary adjustment amounted to non-observance by the Bank of the contracts or terms of employment of the applicants. It is significant both for what it says about cross-fertilization and for the wellspring of cross-fertilization it has created. The former point has already been discussed,319 in particular the WBAT’s important statement that “the judgments of one tribunal may refer to the jurisprudence of another” and that “[s]ome of these judgments even go so far as to speak of general principles of international civil service law or of a body of rules applicable to the international civil service,” as well as its observation of “a certain rapprochement” among the jurisprudences of the various IATs.320

Equally significant is the extent that other IATs have referred to the de Merode decision. Indeed, it has been cited an incredible sixty-eight times by no fewer than ten other IATs, far and away more than any other single decision in international administrative law. Other IATs most commonly refer to de Merode for the proposition that fundamental and essential terms and conditions of employment cannot be unilaterally amended.321 They also regularly refer to it in relation to the principle of acquired rights,322 the discretionary power of the administration and the proper standard for exercising that power,323 the requirement that reforms to administrative procedures be carefully implemented,324 the principle of non-discrimination,325 administrative practice as a source of law,326 and the proposition that the employment relationship of international civil servants is governed by the internal law prevailing within the organization in which they work.327 It has also been referred to on occasion for a wide variety of other propositions, including the prohibition of non-retroactive application of laws,328 the existence of generally recognized principles of international administrative law,329 the periodic adjustment of salaries,330 the possible existence of terms and conditions of employment outside the principle contractual instruments,331 the right of access to an IAT as a fundamental right of international civil servants,332 requests for oral hearings,333 and the prevalence of cross-fertilization among IATs.334 It is worth noting that the case also provides one of the most exhaustive and systematic treatments of sources of law in any IAT decision.335 Overall, there is no doubt that the de Merode Decision stands alone in international administrative law as the single most seminal case. Indeed, it has been observed that the Decision directly influenced the drafting of the Statute of the IMFAT.336

2. A.G. S. v. UNIDO (ILOAT, 2012)

The A.G. S. Judgment by the ILOAT337 has only been cited by two other IATs¾the UNDT and the AfDBAT¾but they have cited it with such frequency, thirty-eight times, that it is behind only de Merode in terms of overall prevalence. While the case is substantively interesting for the tension it illustrates between the need to protect freedom of association and freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the Organization’s duty of care concerning the applicant’s professional reputation, on the other hand, it has always been cited in the context of the principle of res judicata, in particular the tribunal’s conclusion that the existence of an earlier judgment concerning the same applicant and facts did not constitute a res judicata because the earlier judgment only concerned the receivability of the application.

3. Ayoub, Lucal, Montat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson (ILOAT, 1987)

The case of Ayoub et al. before the ILOAT concerned changes to the calculation of pension benefits, which the applicants alleged affected their acquired rights.338 Its discussion of acquired rights has been cited by the ADBAT,339 the UNDT,340 the UNAT,341 and the ESAAT.342 It has also been frequently cited by the UNDT in the context of the meaning of the phrase “contract of employment.”343 The BISAT cites to it for the proposition that fundamental terms of employment may only be amended according to reasonably exercised discretion.344

4. Lindsey (ILOAT, 1962)

The Lindsey Decision concerned changes to the pension regime applicable at the International Telecommunications Union, which the applicant claimed violated his acquired rights. The Tribunal drew a distinction between statutory terms, which pertain to the structure and functioning of the international civil service and which are subject to unilateral modification, on the one hand, and contractual terms, which pertain to the individual terms and conditions of an official in consideration of which he or she accepted the appointment, and which are not subject to unilateral modification, on the other hand.345 The decision has been cited approvingly by both the OASAT and the ADBAT for this distinction between statutory terms and contractual terms.346 In contrast, the UNDT has concluded that Lindsey’s distinction between contractual and statutory elements is not enough, in itself, to determine acquired rights, in that modifications would be allowed even affecting contractional obligations so long as they do not infringe “essential” or “fundamental” terms of appointment.347

5. Sherif (ILOAT, 1956)

The Sherif Judgment of the ILOAT arose out of a decision to terminate a staff-member’s employment for unsatisfactory employment.348 The applicant argued that the decision violated his contract of employment and his acquired rights, since the provision of the Staff Regulations under which he was terminated was added after he took up employment. The Tribunal clarified that the principle of acquired rights did not prevent changes to the Staff Regulations but rather that such changes could not have retroactive effect.349 Thus, it espoused a distinction between contractual elements (in the contract of employment) which were to be considered acquired rights, and statutory elements (in the Staff Regulations and Rules) which were subject to change. This distinction has since been disregarded by IATs in favor of a more nuanced approach which examines the substance of the right in question. The Sherif case has been cited repeatedly, especially by the UNDT, as an example of the “old” distinction.350

6. Other highly-cited judgments

Among the five remaining judgments found in the top ten, four are also from the ILOAT. For example, the ILOAT Judgment in B and others, A.-M. and others, and A.-U. and others, 351 concerning a complaint by Geneva-based staff members of the ILO challenging a downward adjustment in their salaries, has been cited nineteen times in discussions of the integrity of the U.N. common system, albeit always by the UNDT. The ILOAT Judgment in Ballo,352 concerning the limits of the discretionary authority of the head of an organization, has been cited seventeen times by three tribunals, while its Judgment in Khelifati,353 concerning discretionary authority specifically with regard to disciplinary measures, has been cited eleven times by three tribunals. The ILOAT Judgments in M.-J. C. et al. and I.T.,354 concerning due process in relation to termination of staff members with indefinite contracts, have been cited nine times, albeit always by the UNDT. The ILOAT Judgment in Zaunbauer,355 concerning duty of care in the abolition of a post, has been cited nine times by two tribunals. Thus, the only case not from the ILOAT in the top ten is the Amora Decision of the ADBAT, which has been cited nine times by four different tribunals for the proposition that rights of a regular staff member should be accorded to an individual who has held a series of short-term contracts if his employment is essentially of a permanent nature.356

B. Judgments Cited by at Least Four Other Tribunals

While the previous section highlighted the ten most-cited judgments in terms of overall number of citations, another important metric to be taken into consideration is the number of other IATs referring to those judgments. This is important because, in the case of overall number of citations presented in the previous section, a large number of citations sometimes result simply from the same IAT (or even the same judge of that IAT) using the same citation repeatedly when making the same point in various judgments. As can be seen in Table 1 above, while one case (de Merode) was cited by ten tribunals, there are only two other cases in the top ten which were cited by at least four other tribunals. Indeed, there are three judgments in that list that have only been cited by one other tribunal, albeit many times. In the present section, on the other hand, the judgments in question have proven that they have wide-ranging appeal to different IATs in different parts of the world.

In this regard, eight judgments are reviewed here for having been cited by four or more other IATs (in addition to the three in the top ten which also met this metric). The 1980 Judgment of the ILOAT in De Los Cabos and Wenger357 is regularly cited by IATs with respect to the principle of acquired rights.358 It was also cited by the COEAT, to support the proposition that measures taken by an organization must be considered in light of the interests of the entire staff.359

The 1982 Decision of the WBAT in Salle360 has been cited often in relation to the probationary period of a staff member’s employment.361

The 1985 Judgment of the ILOAT in Bustos362 is regularly cited as an example of when a tribunal may look beyond the language of short-term contracts to the intentions of the parties in order to consider the applicant a staff member.363

The 1989 ILOAT Judgment in Ayoub (No. 2), Von Knorring, Perret-Nguyen (No. 2), and Santarelli364 has been cited for its statement that the pension scheme forms part of the administrative arrangements subject to the Noblemaire principle,365 for the proposition that material unilateral changes to fundamental conditions of employment are unlawful,366 and for the proposition that an international civil servant need not await the realization of the institution’s adverse decision to seek a remedy in respect of it.367

The 1992 Judgment of the ILOAT in Vollering368 has been widely referenced in the context of equal treatment and non-discrimination.369

The 1981 Suntharalingam Decision by the WBAT370 has been cited by multiple tribunals in describing the substantive contours of abuse of discretion.371 It has also been used when discussing whether a procedural error can subsequently be cured.372

The 1985 Buranavanichkit Decision before the WBAT373 has been cited for a variety of propositions, including the use of periodic evaluations,374 the ability of an IAT to fix an amount of compensation without ordering the recission of the contested decision,375 the reasons for probationary appointments,376 the possibility of taking deficiencies in interpersonal skills into account in the performance appraisal,377 and the general proposition that a decision is invalid if it constitutes an abuse of discretion, being arbitrary, discriminatory, improperly motivated, or carried out in violation of a fair and reasonable procedure.378

The 1988 Pinto Decision of the WBAT379 has been cited for the general proposition that a decision based on a misuse of discretion which has arbitrary and discriminatory effects on the applicant should be set aside380 and for the more specific proposition that classification and grading is an exercise of discretionary authority, subject to judicial review only for irregularity.381 It has also been referred to in a case concerning the reduction of special allowances and interpreted as not laying down any principle that such allowances must be maintained indefinitely.382

Finally, the 1989 de Raet Decision of the WBAT383 has been widely cited for the proposition that an IAT will not review the substance of an administrative decision involving discretion, only whether it constitutes an abuse of discretion.384 It was also cited by the ADBAT for the concept of shifting of the burden of proof in allegations of abuse of authority.385

Taking stock of the above, it is interesting to note that while the ILOAT dominated the list of the ten most-cited judgments, the present set of judgments cited by four or more tribunals is more evenly split between judgments of the ILOAT and decisions of the WBAT. Thus, when one analyzes the question of cross-fertilization through this lens, the strength of the jurisprudence of the WBAT really becomes clear. Indeed, for the reasons mentioned at the outset of this section, this may very well be a better metric to assess how significant a judgment really is in the jurisprudence of IATs.

C. Judgments Cited by at Least Three Other Tribunals

Finally, over twenty judgments have been cited by at least three other IATs. It is interesting to note that these judgments are again dominated by two tribunals, including thirteen judgments of the ILOAT386 and seven decisions of the WBAT.387 This list also includes one judgement of the UNAdT388 and one decision of the ADBAT.389 The table below summarizes these judgments, the IATs which cited them, and the subjects for which they were cited.

IV. Conclusions and Observations

Fifty years after Akehurst declared that “[i]nternational administrative tribunals behave as if the internal laws of different organizations formed part of a single system of law,”390 it can now be seen, on the basis of the review of the jurisprudence of all IATs, just how insightful his statement has proven to be.391 Cross-fertilization has become a common practice in almost all IATs. Gone are the days when IATs felt the need to justify such practice. Indeed, as we have seen, they now cite each other consistently and unapologetically, often referring to the jurisprudence of their sister tribunals even when there is a case on point in their own jurisprudence.

While virtually all IATs are citing to their peers, they do not do so with the same frequency. A group of tribunals¾including the WBAT, IMFAT, UNDT, UNAT, ADBAT, COEAT, and AfDBAT¾have set themselves apart as leaders in this practice. In so doing, they are living proof of the “certain rapprochement” foreseen by the WBAT in its seminal de Merode Decision392 and the “large measure of ‘common’ law of international organizations” described by the ADBAT in its influential Lindsey Decision.393

On the other end of this spectrum, one is struck immediately by the lack of frequency with which the ILOAT cites to other tribunals. Perhaps it does not feel the need to do so, it being the most established tribunal with the largest jurisprudence on which to draw. On the other hand, it may do well to consider the jurisprudence of its peers; as a leading commentator has noted, several organizations have recently withdrawn from its jurisdiction and either set up their own tribunal or accepted the jurisdiction of another tribunal, apparently out of dissatisfaction with the ILOAT’s position on a given issue.394

It has also been apparent throughout the analysis that while IATs cited to the former UNAdT regularly, they have been much less open to referring to the UNDT and UNAT which replaced that tribunal in the new U.N. internal justice system established in 2009. The reasons for this are unclear, but perhaps one can imagine that the UNAdT held a sort of different status¾it being one of the first IATs established, together with the ILOAT¾while the UNDT and UNAT came onto the scene alongside many other tribunals. One cannot help but notice, however, that the WBAT, a trend-setter in cross-fertilization since the beginning, has cited to the UNDT and UNAT more often than others have. Perhaps other IATs will eventually follow suit?

While there have been over the years occasional calls for efforts to harmonize the law applicable to the international civil service through the creation of one “super-tribunal,”395 it is hoped that the findings of this article will put this idea to rest. Indeed, as a result of this practice of cross-fertilization, a universal law of internal justice has begun to crystalize. Tribunals from the ADBAT to the OASAT, UNDT, EBRDAT, IMFAT and others, when discussing acquired rights, cite systematically to the WBAT’s de Merode Decision. When examining the effect of a series of short-term contracts of employment, tribunals cite to the ADBAT’s Amora Decision. When analyzing the discretionary power of the administration, tribunals refer to the ILOAT’s Ballo Judgment. Concerning obligations to staff whose positions have been abolished, tribunals look to the IMFAT’s Judgment in the Mr. “F” case. Through this practice, IATs are defining together which areas of international administrative law are common ground, as evident from the cross-fertilization itself, and which areas remain unique to the internal law of the organization concerned. In so doing, IATs are able to maintain their unique position at the crossroads of international, institutional, and administrative law.

Download annex

• 1Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, International Administrative Tribunals, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 316, 318–19 (Cesare P.R. Romano et al., eds., 2014).
• 2Henry G. Schermers & Niels M. Blokker, International Institutional Law: Unity Within Diversity 487 (6th ed. 2018) (citing League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Suppl. No. 54, at 201, 478).
• 3At the time of this writing, the following international administrative tribunals are functioning: (1) Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization; (2) Council of Europe Administrative Tribunal; (3) Organization of American States Administrative Tribunal; (4) European Space Agency Administrative Tribunal; (5) World Bank Administrative Tribunal; (6) Inter-American Development Bank Administrative Tribunal; (7) Administrative Tribunal of the Bank for International Settlements; (8) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Administrative Tribunal; (9) Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal; (10) International Monetary Fund (IMF) Administrative Tribunal; (11) Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal; (12) African Development Bank Administrative Tribunal; (13) African Union Administrative Tribunal; (14) Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) Administrative Tribunal; (15) Administrative Tribunal of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD); (16) European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) Appeals Board; (17) United Nations Dispute Tribunal; (18) United Nations Appeals Tribunal; (19) Organisation internationale de la francophonie, tribunal de première instance; (20) Organisation internationale de la francophonie, tribunal d’appel; (21) United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) Dispute Tribunal; (22) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Administrative Tribunal; (23) European Stability Mechanism Administrative Tribunal; (24) Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), General Court, having jurisdiction over administrative law cases; (25) Appeals Board of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts; (26) CARICOM (Caribbean Community) Administrative Tribunal; and (27) European Schools Complaints Board, which has jurisdiction over staff cases as well as, for example, complaints by parents and students. Although the GAVI (Vaccine Alliance) Administrative Tribunal has been mentioned in the literature (See Chris de Cooker, Proliferation of International Administrative Tribunals, 12 Asian J. Int’l L. 232, 238 (2022)), no information on it is publicly available. Similarly, the proposed creation in 2022 of the Square Kilometer Array Observatory (SKAO) Administrative Tribunal has been mentioned (Id.), but no information is publicly available. The jurisprudence of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts is also not publicly available, although it does appear to exist (See Gregor Wettberg, Appeals Board: European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). See also Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law ¶ 16 (Hélène Ruiz Fabri & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., 2019)). Finally, while the European Schools Complaints Board has jurisdiction over staff complaints, the vast majority of its jurisprudence concerns complaints against the schools by parents, and it is thus not analyzed further here.
• 4For a detailed description of the sources used by IATs, see, e.g., Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Sources of International Administrative Law, in International Law at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago 67 (1987); Yaraslau Kryvoi, The Law Applied by International Administrative Tribunals: From Autonomy to Hierarchy, 47 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 267, 274–93 (2015).
• 5For a brief treatment of this issue, see Joan S. Powers, The Evolving Jurisprudence of the International Administrative Tribunals: Convergence or Divergence?, Asian Infrs. Invs. Bank Y.B. Int’l L. 68 (2018). Indeed, Powers observes in her article that “[t]his is a huge question that deserves a more comprehensive treatment.” Id. at 72.
• 6Michael B. Akehurst, The Law Governing Employment in International Organizations 263 (1967) (emphasis added).
• 7See Rep. of the Study Group of the Int’l Law Comm’n, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 and Add.1 and Corr. 1 (2006).
• 8See, e.g., Bruno Simma, Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner, 20 Eur. J. Int’l L. 265 (2009).
• 9See Powers, supra note 5, at 70.
• 10See World Bank Administrative Tribunal, World Bank (2023), https://perma.cc/Q8ZN-VBSN.
• 11de Merode et al. v. World Bank, Decision No. 1, ¶¶ 26-28 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 5, 1981).
• 12See, e.g., Mohsin v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment in No. CSAT/3 (No. 1), ¶ 2 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Sept. 6, 2001).
• 13See de Merode et al., Decision No. 1, ¶ 46 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981).
• 14AA v. IBRD, Decision No. 384, ¶¶ 28, 49–50 (World Bank Admin. Trib. July 18, 2008).
• 15E v. IBRD, Decision No. 325, ¶ 26 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 12, 2004) (concerning the deduction of support payments under the Staff Retirement Plan in light of a divorce decree handed down by a domestic court, and citing Mr. “R” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-1, ¶ 146 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Mar. 5, 2002)).
• 16Aleem & Aleem v. IBRD, Decision No. 424, ¶¶ 57–62. (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 9, 2009).
• 17Id. See also Mills v. IBRD, Decision No. 383, ¶¶ 33, 35 (World Bank Admin. Trib. July 18, 2008) (citing Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2001-2 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”, Judgment No. 2006-6 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Nov. 29, 2006)).
• 18BO v. IBRD, Decision No. 453, ¶¶ 66–71 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 25, 2011) (citing In re Giordimaina, Judgment No. 2116 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 2002); Mrs. H.J. T. v. IFAD, Judgment No. 2392 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2005)).
• 19S v. IBRD, Decision No. 373, ¶ 67 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 14, 2007) (citing In re Duncker, Judgment No. 49 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 23, 1960)).
• 20Cissé v. IBRD, Decision No. 242, ¶ 3 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Apr. 26, 2001).
• 21Id. ¶ 14.
• 22Id. ¶ 23.
• 23Caryk v. IBRD, Decision No. 214, ¶ 5 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 1, 1999); Madhusudan v. IBRD, Decision No. 215, ¶¶ 2–3. (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 1, 1999).
• 24Caryk, Decision No. 214, ¶ 13 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999); Madhusudan, Decision No. 215, ¶ 25 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999) (both cases citing Amora v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 6, 1997)).
• 25Caryk, Decision No. 214, ¶ 19 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999); Madhusudan, Decision No. 215, ¶ 25 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999).
• 26Caryk, Decision No. 214, ¶¶ 20–26 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999); Madhusudan, Decision No. 215, ¶¶ 26–34 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999). See also N v. IBRD, Decision No. 362, ¶¶ 36–37 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 28, 2007) (citing Galang v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 55 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 8, 2002) to support a compensation award for moral damage, anxiety and stress caused to a staff member by due process violations during a misconduct investigation).
• 27CL v. IBRD, Decision No. 499, ¶ 73 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Sept. 26, 2014) (quoting James v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2009/025 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Sept. 30, 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
• 28FM v. IBRD, Decision No. 643, ¶ 129 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 16, 2020) (citing Koda v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2011-UNAT-130 (U.N. App. Trib. July 8, 2011)).
• 29Tanner v. IBRD, Decision No. 478, ¶ 30 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing Amoussouga-Géro v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2021/050 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 3, 2021)).
• 30FA v. IBRD, Decision No. 612, ¶¶ 152–53 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 25, 2019) (citing Mapuranga v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2018/132 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 14, 2018); Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-280 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 28, 2013)).
• 31AI (No. 3) v. IBRD, Decision No. 495, ¶ 25 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 28, 2014).
• 32See G (No. 2) v. IBRD, Decision No. 361, ¶ 30 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 28, 2007); Z v. IBRD, Decision No. 380, ¶ 20 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 18, 2008).
• 33See generally IMF Administrative Tribunal, International Monetary Fund, (2023) https://perma.cc/8WKM-FFXF.
• 34Search carried out on Sept. 7, 2021 on combined jurisprudence from 1994 to 2020. It should be noted that the figures cited represent the total number of hits for each IAT in the IMFAT jurisprudence, some of which may be citations by the parties.
• 35See E, Decision No. 325, ¶ 26 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2004); Mills, Decision No. 383, ¶¶ 33–35 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2008); Aleem & Aleem, Decision No. 424, ¶¶ 57–62 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2009). The extent to which the IMFAT has cited the ADBAT is also notable. As a tribunal with a relatively small jurisprudence, having rendered only 120 decisions since its first case in 1992, other IATs have cited the ADBAT on just a handful of occasions, whereas the IMFAT has cited seventeen different ADBAT judgments, often multiple times: Lindsey v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 1 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 18, 1992) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Ms. “C” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1997-1; Mr. “R” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-1; Ms. “G” and Mr. “H” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-3; Ms. “T” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-2; Ms. “U” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-3; Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-6; Ms. “EE” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2010-4; Mr. “HH” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2013-4); Bares v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 5 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. May 31, 1995) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Mr. “DD” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2007-8; Ms. “EE” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2010-4); Viswanathan v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 12 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 8, 1996) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Ms. “G” and Mr. “H” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-3); Mesch & Siy v. Asian Dev. Bank (No. 3), Decision No. 18 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 13, 1996) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Estate of Mr. “D” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2001-1; Mr. “P” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2001-2); Chan v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 20 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 13, 1996) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Mr. “V” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1999-2); Amora, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Mr. “A” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1999-1); De Armas et al. v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 39 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 5, 1998) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Mr. “R” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-1); Alexander v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 40 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 5, 1998) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Ms. “Z” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2005-4; Mr. M. D’Aoust (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2007-3; Ms. C. O’Connor (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2011-1); Alcartado v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 41 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 5, 1998) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Estate of Mr. “D” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2001-1; Ms. “Y” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-2; Mr. “O” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-1; Ms. “AA” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-5; Ms. C. O-Connor (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2011-1; Ms. “GG” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2015-3); Toivanen v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 51 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Sept. 21, 2000) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Ms. “T” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-2; Ms. “U” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-3; Ms. “AA” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-5); Galang, Decision No. 55 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2002) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Ms. “EE” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2010-4); Ms. C. v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 58 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 8, 2003) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Ms. “AA” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-5); Guioguio v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 59 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 8, 2003) (cited in the following IMFAT judgments: Mr. M. D’Aoust (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2007-3; Ms. N. Sachdev v. IMF, Judgment No. 2012-1); de Alwis v. Asian Dev. Bank (No. 3), Decision No. 70 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 20, 2005) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Mr. “KK” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2016-2); Mr. “E” v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 103 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 12, 2014) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Ms. “GG” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2015-3); Mr. F v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 104 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 6, 2014) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Ms. “GG” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2015-3); Cruz v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 115 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 21, 2018) (cited in the following IMFAT judgment: Mr. “LL” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2019-1).
• 36Mr. M. D’Aoust (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2007-3, ¶¶ 10, 67–68, 73, 86, 102, 137 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. May 22, 2007) (citing In re Der Hovsepian, Judgment No. 1177 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 1992); In re De Riemaeker (No. 3), Judgment No. 1595 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 1997); In re Pinto, Judgment No. 1646 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 10, 1997); In re Cassaignau (No. 4), Judgment No. 1359 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 13, 1994); In re van der Peet (No. 17), Judgment No. 1316 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 31, 1994); In re Kirstetter (No. 2), Judgment No. 1223 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 10 1993); M. D. S. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2163 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 2002); In re Vianney, Judgment No. 1158 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1992); R.S. I. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2393 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2005); In re Matthews, Judgment No. 2004 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 31 2001)).
• 37Id. ¶¶ 73, 86, 137 (citing Hitch v. IBRD, Decision No. 344 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 4, 2005); Jassal v. IBRD, Decision No. 100 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 20, 1991); Perea v. IFC, Decision No. 326 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 12, 2004); Sebastian (No. 2) v. IBRD, Decision No. 57 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 26, 1988); Nunberg v. IBRD, Decision No. 245 (World Bank Admin. Trib. July 23, 2001)).
• 38Id. ¶¶ 10, 103 (citing Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 1245 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 22, 2005); Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 1304 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 28, 2006); Byaje v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 1126 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 25, 2003)).
• 39Id. ¶¶ 73, 137 (citing Guioguio, Decision No. 59 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2003); Alexander, Decision No. 40 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998)).
• 40Id. ¶ 10.
• 41Id. ¶ 68.
• 42Id. ¶¶ 73, 86.
• 43Id. ¶¶ 102–03.
• 44Ms. “EE” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2010-4, ¶ 85 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Dec. 3, 2010) (citing D v. IFC, Decision No. 304 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 12, 2003)); id. ¶¶ 87, 125 (citing AE v. IBRD, Decision No. 392 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 25, 2009); AF v. IBRD, Decision No. 393 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 25, 2009)); id. ¶ 101 (citing Koudogbo, v. IBRD, Decision No. 246 (World Bank Admin. Trib. July 23, 2001)); id. ¶¶ 103, 248 (citing G v. IBRD, Decision No. 340 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 4, 2005); N, Decision No. 362 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2007); BB v. IBRD, Decision No. 426 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 9, 2009)); id. ¶¶ 105–06, 111 (citing Sjamsubahri v. IBRD, Decision No. 145 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 9, 1995)); id. ¶ 187 (citing BF v. IBRD, Decision No. 430 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 23, 2010)); id. ¶ 195 (citing Z, Decision No. 380 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2008)).
• 45Id. ¶¶ 90, 174–76 (citing Galang, Decision No. 55 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2002)); id. ¶ 139 (citing Bares, Decision No. 5 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1995)); id. ¶ 189 (citing Lindsey, Decision No. 1 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992)).
• 46Id. ¶ 85 (citing Kiwanuka v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 941 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 19, 1999)).
• 47Id. ¶ 85.
• 48Id. ¶¶ 90, 103–07, 174–76.
• 49Ms. N. Sachdev v. IMF, Judgment No. 2012-1, ¶ 80 (IMF Admin. Trib. Mar. 6, 2012) (citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); id. ¶ 100 (citing Hitch, Decision No. 344 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2005); Jassal, Decision No. 100 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1991)); id. ¶ 171 (citing Njovens v. IBRD, Decision No. 294 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 20, 2003)); id. ¶¶ 212–16 (citing Jakub v. IBRD, Decision No. 321 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 12, 2004); Marshall v. IBRD, Decision No. 226 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 18, 2000); F (No. 2) v. IBRD, Decision No. 347 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 26, 2006); Arellano (No. 2) v. IBRD, Decision No. 161 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 10, 1997); Marchesini v. IBRD, Decision No. 260 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 24, 2002)).
• 50Id. ¶ 100 (citing In re Pinto, Judgment No. 1646 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1997)); id. ¶ 135 (citing R.S. I., Judgment No. 2393 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2005)); id. ¶ 171 (citing A. M. I. v. IFRC, Judgment No. 2156 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 2002)); id. ¶ 217 (citing In re Hermann, Judgment No. 133 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Mar. 17, 1969)).
• 51Id. ¶ 100 (citing Guioguio, Decision No. 59 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2003)).
• 52Id. ¶ 2.
• 53Id. ¶ 100.
• 54Id. ¶¶ 212–17.
• 55Ms. “GG” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2015-3, ¶¶ 24, 66, 271, 362, 441, 466 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Dec. 29, 2015) (citing N, Decision No. 362 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2007); Rendall-Speranza v. IFC, Decision No. 197 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 19, 1998); Sekabaraga v. IBRD (Preliminary Objection), Decision No. 494 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 28, 2014); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); AK v. IBRD, Decision No. 408 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 9, 2009); AS v. IBRD, Decision No. 416 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 9, 2009)).
• 56Id. ¶¶ 66, 187, 249, 271 (citing E. D. G. v. FAO, Judgment No. 3318 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 28, 2014); H. L. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 3347 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2014); H.F. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 2553 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 12, 2006)).
• 57Id. ¶¶ 271, 302, 440 (citing Mr. “E”, Decision No. 103 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2014); Alcartado, Decision No. 41 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998); Mr. F, Decision No. 104 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2014)).
• 58Id. ¶ 187 (citing Q v Eur. Comm., Judgment No. F-52/05 (Eur. Civ. Serv. Trib. Dec. 9, 2008)).
• 59These also included the in camera review of documents, the distinction between a misconduct procedure and a case for the resolution of an employment dispute, the special responsibilities carried by managers for ensuring the fair treatment of staff members, constraints on an organization’s discretionary authority to adopt regulatory decisions, respectful formulation of pleadings, and the right to an impartial adjudicator. See id. ¶¶ 24, 66, 187, 249, 271, 302, 362, 440–41, 466.
• 60Mr. “A” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1999-1, ¶¶ 2, 60 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Aug. 12, 1999).
• 61Id. ¶ 90 n.19 (citing Bohn, Coeytaux, and Vouillemont v. UNJSPF, Judgement No. 378 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Dec. 5, 1986); Gilbert, Hyde, Ishkinazi, and Michel v. UNJSPF, Judgement No. 379 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Dec. 5, 1986); Zafari v. Commissioner-General of the UNRWA, Judgement No. 461 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 10, 1989)); id. ¶¶ 66, 74 (citing Camargo v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 96 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Sept. 29, 1965)); id. ¶¶ 88–90 (citing Shkukani v. Commissioner-General of the UNRWA, Judgement No. 628 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 17, 1993)); id. ¶¶ 74–76 (citing Teixeira v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 233 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Oct. 13, 1978); Teixeira v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 230 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Oct. 14, 1977)).
• 62Id. ¶¶ 72–73 (citing In re Amezketa, Judgment No. 1034 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 26, 1990)); id. ¶¶ 77–81 (citing In re Bustos, Judgment No. 701 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 14, 1985)); id. ¶¶ 70–71, 91 (citing In re Darricades, Judgment No. 67 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 26, 1962)); id. ¶ 65 (citing In re Labarthe, Judgment No. 307 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 6, 1977)); id. ¶¶ 68–69 (citing In re Privitera, Judgment No. 75 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 11, 1964)).
• 63Id. ¶ 63 (citing Justin v. World Bank, Decision No. 15 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 5, 1984)).
• 64Id. ¶¶ 82–85 (citing Amora, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997)).
• 65Estate of Mr. “D” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2001-1, ¶ 67 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Mar. 30, 2001) (citing Rae (No. 2) v. IBRD, Decision No. 132 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 10, 1993)); id. ¶ 68 (citing de Jong v. IFC, Decision No. 89 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 25, 1990)); id. ¶ 94 (citing Lewin v. IBRD, Decision No. 152 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 22, 1996)); id. ¶¶ 97, 121 (citing Setia v. IBRD, Decision No. 134 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 10, 1993)); id. ¶¶ 104–05 (citing Yousufzi v. IBRD, Decision No. 151 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 22, 1996)); id. ¶¶ 104, 125 (citing Agerschou v. IBRD, Decision No. 114 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1992)); id. ¶ 106 (citing A v. IBRD, Decision No. 182 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 18, 1997); Mustafa v. IBRD, Decision No. 195 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 15, 1998)); id. ¶ 120 (citing Guya v. IBRD, Decision No. 174 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 18, 1997)); id. ¶ 125 (citing Bredero v. IBRD, Decision No. 129 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 10, 1993)); id. ¶¶ 126–127 (citing Robinson v. IBRD, Decision No. 78 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 5, 1989)).
• 66Id. ¶¶ 92, 95 (citing Alcartado, Decision No. 41 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998)); id. ¶¶ 104, 107 (citing Mesch and Siy (No. 3), Decision No. 18 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1996)).
• 67Id. ¶¶ 93, 96 (citing In re Schulz, Judgment No. 575 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 20, 1983)); id. ¶ 100 (citing In re Al-Joundi, Judgment No. 259 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 27, 1975)).
• 68Id. ¶¶ 92–107.
• 69Mr. “F” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2005-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Mar. 18, 2005).
• 70Id. ¶ 48 (citing Fidel v. IBRD, Decision No. 302 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 12, 2003)); id. ¶ 52 (citing Brannigan v. IBRD, Decision No. 165 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 10, 1997)); id. ¶¶ 52, 114 (citing Arellano (No. 2), Decision No. 161 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1997)); id. ¶ 71 (citing Jassal, Decision No. 100 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1991)); id. ¶ 72 (citing Denning v. IBRD, Decision No. 168 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 10, 1997); Marchesini, Decision No. 260 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2002); Harou v. IBRD, Decision No. 273 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Sept. 30, 2002); del Campo v. IBRD, Decision No. 292 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 20, 2003); Njovens, Decision No. 294 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2003); Taborga v. IBRD, Decision No. 297 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 20, 2003)); id. ¶ 104 (citing Garcia-Mujica v. IBRD, Decision No. 192 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 15, 1998)); id. ¶ 120 (citing Jakub, Decision No. 321 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2004)); id. ¶ 121 (citing Chhabra v. IBRD, Decision No. 139 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 14, 1994)).
• 71Id. ¶ 13 n.8 (citing In re Malhotra, Judgment No. 1372 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 13, 1994)); id. ¶¶ 48, 78 (citing J. C. v. CERN, Judgment No. 139 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 3, 1969)); id. ¶ 60 (citing A. M. I., Judgment No. 2156 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2002)); id. ¶ 113 (citing In re Gracia de Muñiz, Judgment No. 269 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 12, 1976)); id. ¶ 116 (citing S. S. v. Interpol, Judgment No. 2294 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2004)).
• 72Id. ¶ 117.
• 73Ms. “Y” (No. 2) v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-2 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Mar. 5, 2002) (citing Alcartado, Decision No. 41 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998); In re Diotallevi and Tedjini, Judgment No. 1272 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 1993); In re Durand-Smet (No. 4), Judgment No. 2040 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 3, 2000); In re Pary (No. 4), Judgment No. 1500 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 1996); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); de Raet v. IBRD, Decision No. 85 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Sept. 22, 1989); Pinto v. IBRD, Decision No. 56 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 26, 1988); Sebastian (No. 2), Decision No. 57 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988); Yousufzi, Decision No. 151 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1996)).
• 74Ms. “AA” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2006-5 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Nov. 27, 2006) (citing Alcartado, Decision No. 41 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998); Ms. C., Decision No. 58 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2003); Toivanen, Decision No. 51 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2000); In re Saunders (No. 13), Judgment No. 1466 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 1996); In re Schulz, Judgment No. 575 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1983); A, Decision No. 182 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1997); E, Decision No. 325 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2004); N v. IBRD, Decision No. 356 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Sept. 28, 2006)).
• 75Pyne v. IMF, Judgment No. 2011-2 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Nov. 14, 2011) (citing In re Gracia de Muñiz, Judgment No. 269 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1976); Marshall, Decision No. 226 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2000); Jakub, Decision No. 321 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2004); F (No. 2), Decision No. 347 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2006); Arellano (No. 2), Decision No. 161 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1997); Marchesini, Decision No. 260 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2002); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); Kepper v. IFC, Decision No. 149 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 14, 1996)).
• 76D’Aoust v. IMF, Judgment No. 1996-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Apr. 2, 1996) (citing Pinto, Decision No. 56 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988); Schwarzenberg Fonck v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 2 (Inter-Am. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. May 14, 1984); In re Connolly-Battisti (No. 5), Judgment No. 323 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 21, 1977); In re Diotallevi and Tedjini, Judgment No. 1272 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1993); In re Dunand and Jacquemod, Judgment No. 929 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 8, 1988); In re Garcia, Judgment No. 591 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 20, 1983); In re Niesing, Peeters and Roussot, Judgment No. 963 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 27, 1989)).
• 77Ms. “C” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1997-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Aug. 22, 1997) (citing Lindsey, Decision No. 1 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992); Belas-Gianou v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 707 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 28, 1995); Benthin v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 700 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 27, 1995); Safavi v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 465 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 15, 1989); Broemser v. IBRD, Decision No. 27 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 25, 1985); Buranavanichkit v. IBRD, Decision No. 7 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 25, 1982); Matta v. IBRD, Decision No. 12 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 8, 1982)).
• 78Daseking-Frank, et al. v. IMF, Judgment No. 2007-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Jan. 24, 2007) (citing Gretz and others v. UNJSPB, Judgement No. 403 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 12, 1987); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); von Stauffenberg, Ganuelas, and Leach v. World Bank, Decision No. 38 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 27, 1987); Sebastian (No. 2), Decision No. 57 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988); In re Berthet (No. 2), Lampinen, Leberman and Schechinger, Judgment 1912 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2000); Crevier v. IBRD, Decision No. 205 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 1999); Kepper, Decision No. 149 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1996)).
• 79G.A. Res. 63/253, ¶¶ 26–27 (Dec. 24, 2008).
• 80See generally Rishi Gulati, The Internal Dispute Resolution Regime of the United Nations: Has the Creation of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and United Nations Appeals Tribunal Remedied the Flaws of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal?, 15 Max Planck Y.B. U.N. L. 489 (2011).
• 81G.A. Res. 351 A(IV) (Nov. 24, 1949).
• 82See Who Can Use the System, United Nations (2023) https://perma.cc/5TVK-ULGJ.
• 83See the CJIL Online publication for an Annex containing a full catalogue of these citations.
• 84Gatti et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 126 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 7, 2013); McKay v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2012/018 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Feb. 9, 2012).
• 85Nwuke v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/157 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 4, 2013).
• 86Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/163 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 5, 2013).
• 87Mihai v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/087 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. June 22, 2016).
• 88Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097, ¶ 88 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 29, 2017) (citing Report of the Redesign Panel, U.N. Doc. A/61/205, ¶ 96).
• 89See Guevara v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/108 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 23, 2013); El-Komy v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/122 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 9, 2013); El-Komy v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/123 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 9, 2013); Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/125 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 11, 2013); Mabande v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/168 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 11, 2013); Yudin v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/008 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 28, 2014); Adundo v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/009 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 28, 2014); Lamuraglia v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/010 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 28, 2014); Adu-Mensah v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/011 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 28, 2014); Chaclag v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/012 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 28, 2014); Utkina v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/024 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 28, 2014); Shrivastava v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/031 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 19, 2014); Sprauten v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 113 (NY/2014) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 8, 2014); Kodre v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 130 (NY/2014) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 29, 2014); Wishart v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 261 (NY/2014) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Sept. 9, 2014); Gittens v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 350 (NY/2014) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 30, 2014); Snit v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 354 (NY/2014) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 30, 2014); El Chaar v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 150 (NY/2015) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 20, 2015); Chua v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 33 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Feb. 5, 2016); Kawas v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 55 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Feb. 29, 2016); Al-Midani v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 56 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Feb. 29, 2016); Bilbrough v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 68 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 8, 2016); Lawrence v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 133 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. June 7, 2016); Basnyat v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 207 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 30, 2016); Elimu v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 265 (NY/2016) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Nov. 25, 2016); Shehadeh v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 52 (NY/2017) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 23, 2017); Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 99 (NY/2017) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 23, 2017); Sebillot v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 182 (NY/2017) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Sept. 7, 2017); Yuen v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 183 (NY/2017) U.N. Dispt. Trib. Sept. 7, 2017); Duong v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 184 (NY/2017) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Sept. 8, 2017); Menekse v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 226 (NY/2017) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 11, 2017); Roy v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 2 (NY/2018) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 5, 2018); Kinglow v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 98 (NY/2018) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 17, 2018); Chohan v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 115 (NY/2018) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. June 1, 2018); Ndiaye v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 141 (NY/2018) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 6, 2018); Malinin v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 215 (NY/2018) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 31, 2018); Zilberg v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 216 (NY/2018) (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 31, 2018).
• 90Hassanin v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/181, ¶¶ 87–90 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 7, 2016) (citing In re Zaunbauer, Judgment No. 1782 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 1998); M.-J. C. and others v. Centre for the Dev. of Enterprise, Judgment No. 3238 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2013); I. T. v. Technical Centre for Agricultural & Rural Co-op., Judgment No. 3437 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 11, 2015)).
• 91Crotty v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/190 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 19, 2016); Alsado v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/191 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 19, 2016); Wright v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/192 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 19, 2016); Fasanella v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/193 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 19, 2016); Smith v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/194 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 19, 2016); Zachariah v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/195 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 19, 2016). For references to the ILOAT, see, e.g., Crotty, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/190, ¶¶ 57–60, 89–90, 96 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2016).
• 92See Abd Al-Shakour et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/106 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. June 30, 2020); Cardenas Fischer et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/107 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. June 30, 2020); Steinbach v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/114 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 10, 2020); Bozic v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/115 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 10, 2020); Andres et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/117 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 14, 2020); Angelova et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/118 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 14, 2020); Andreeva et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/122 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 16, 2020); Bozic et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/129 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 29, 2020); Angelova et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/130 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 29, 2020); Andres et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/131 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 29, 2020); Andreeva et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/132 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 29, 2020); Abd Al-Shakour et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/133 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 29, 2020); Doedens et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/148 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Correia Reis et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/149 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Bettighofer et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/150 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Avognon et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/151 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Alsaqqaf et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/152 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Aligula et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/153 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Aksioutine et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/154 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020).
• 93In re Sherif, Judgment No. 29 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 13, 1957); In re Lindsey, Judgment No. 61 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 4, 1962); In re Ayoub, Lucal, Montat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 5, 1987); In re Ashurst, Berthet, Bosshard and Tuli, Judgment No. 1798 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1999); B. and others et al. v. ILO, Judgment No. 4134 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 2019).
• 94B. and others et al., Judgment No. 4134, 2 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2019).
• 95Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/106, ¶ 7 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020).
• 96See Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Quijano-Evans & Dedeyne-Amann v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/098 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 29, 2017); Mirella, Ben Said, Santini, and Keating v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/099 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 29, 2017).
• 97See, e.g., Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097, ¶¶ 54–63 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017) (citing In re Chadsey, Judgment No. 122 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 15, 1968); In re Rubio, Judgment No. 1644 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 10, 1997)).
• 98See, e.g., Id. ¶¶ 86–87 (citing In re Berlioz, Hansson, Heitz, Pary (No. 2) and Slater, Judgment No. 1265 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 1993); B. and others v. ILO, Judgment No. 3883 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2017)).
• 99See, e.g., Id. ¶¶ 107–22 (citing In re Wilcox, Judgment No. 19 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 26, 1955); In re Sherif, Judgment No. 29 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1957); In re Poulain d’Andecy, Judgment No. 51 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 23, 1960); In re Lindsey, Judgment No. 61 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1962); In re Lamadie (No. 2) and Kraanen, Judgment No. 365 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1978); In re Mertens, Judgment No. 370 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 18, 1979); In re de Los Cobos and Wenger, Judgment No. 391 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 24, 1980); In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987)).
• 100Bertucci v. U.N. Secretary-General, Order No. 40 (NY/2010), ¶¶ 1–6 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 3, 2010).
• 101Id. ¶¶ 23–35 (citing In re Ali Khan, Judgment No. 556 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Mar. 30, 1983); In re Omokolo (Nos. 1 and 2), Judgment No. 1115 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 1991); In re Der Hovsepian, Judgment No. 1177 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1992); In re Morris (No. 2), Judgment No. 1323 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 31, 1994); In re Malhotra, Judgment No. 1372 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1994); In re Fauquex, Judgment No. 1513 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 11, 1996)).
• 102Id. ¶ 36.
• 103Id. ¶ 46.
• 104In Woldeselassie, for example, the UNDT cited multiple ILOAT cases for the simple proposition that theft constitutes an egregious lapse in the integrity expected of an international civil servant (See Woldeselassie v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2010/096, ¶ 55 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. May 21, 2010) (citing K. A. K. v. WHO, Judgment No. 1828 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1999); In re Schubert, Judgment No. 1925 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2000); E. B. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2231 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 16, 2003)). In Samardzic et al., the UNDT faced the simple task of dismissing an application for being out of time. Yet, in doing so, it first compared the time limits in its Statute to those of the WBAT, the ILOAT and the European Civil Service Tribunal, to show that “the time limits in the United Nations justice system are neither unique nor exceptionally restrictive” (Samardzic et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2010/019, ¶¶ 22–23 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 29, 2010)). It then cited cases of the ILOAT, WBAT and UNAdT which emphasized the importance of time limits. Id. ¶¶ 24–26 (citing In re Goldschmidt, Judgment No. 752 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 12, 1986); Agerschou, Decision No. 114 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1992); Ya’coub v. Commissioner-General of the UNRWA, Judgement No. 953 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 28, 2000)). Ironically, the Tribunal then finally lands on a decision from its own jurisprudence for the exact proposition, noting that “[f]inally, the Dispute Tribunal has also already justified time limits.” See id. ¶ 27 (citing Morsy v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2009/036 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Oct. 16, 2009)). In Obdeijn, it cited eleven different ILOAT Judgments drawing heavily on the jurisprudence of that tribunal to elaborate and explain rules governing the expiry of fixed-term appointments (Obdeijn v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/032, ¶¶ 24, 36–37, 48, 52 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Feb. 10, 2011) (citing In re Duberg, Judgment No. 17 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 26, 1955); In re Leff, Judgment No. 18 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 26, 1955); In re Wilcox, Judgment No. 19 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1955); In re Bernstein, Judgment No. 21 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 29, 1955); In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 15, 1972); In re Pérez del Castillo, Judgment No. 675 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 19, 1985); In re Bluske, Judgment No. 1154 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1992); In re Amira, Judgment No. 1317 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 31, 1994); F. J. v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 1817 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1999); In re Ansorge (No. 3), Judgment No. 1911 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2000); G.E. J. v. ILO, Judgment No. 2499 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 2006)). In Zeid, it considered the question of compensation to the applicant for substantial or inordinate delay by the organization vis-à-vis various procedures involving staff-members. Even after citing several UNDT and UNAT decisions establishing the principle that such delays should be compensated, the UNDT went on to detail similar cases in the ILOAT and WBAT. See Zeid v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/005, ¶¶ 55–61 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 17, 2013) (citing C. C. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2706 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 6, 2008); BO, Decision No. 453 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2011)).
• 105Wilson v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2018/136 Corr. 1, ¶¶ 75, 87 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 21, 2018). This approach can be contrasted with that in El-Kholy, where it stated that it would consider judgments of the ILOAT as persuasive on an issue “[i]n the absence of specific authority from the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.” El-Kholy v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2016/102, ¶ 60 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. July 22, 2016).
• 106G.A. Res. 351 A(IV), supra note 81, ¶¶ 26–27.
• 107See Applicant v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-302, ¶ 37 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 28, 2013) (citing Y. G. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2771 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2009)).
• 108See Alcañiz et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-840, ¶¶ 86, 90 (U.N. App. Trib. June 29, 2018) (citing In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987); P. B. and I. N. v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 2632 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 11, 2007)). See also Quijano-Evans et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-841 (U.N. App. Trib. June 29, 2018); Mirella et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-842 (U.N. App. Trib. June 29, 2018).
• 109See Gehr v. U.N. Secretary-General, 2012-UNAT-236, ¶¶ 25, 29 (U.N. App. Trib. June 29, 2012) (citing F. L. v. ITU, Judgment No. 2967 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2011) and R.C. W. v. FAO, Judgment No. 3084 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 8, 2012)). See also Pacheco v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-281, ¶ 22 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 28, 2013); Bali v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2014-UNAT-450, ¶ 21 (U.N. App. Trib. June 27, 2014); Matadi et al. v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2015-UNAT-592, ¶ 16 (U.N. App. Trib. Oct. 30, 2015); Toure v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2016-UNAT-660, ¶ 16 (U.N. App. Trib. June 30, 2016); Khalaf v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2016-UNAT-678, ¶ 38 (U.N. App. Trib. June 30, 2016).
• 110Other propositions for which the UNAT has looked to the ILOAT include the Noblemaire principle and its application to the pension systems (see, e.g., Muthuswami et al. v. UNJSPB, Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-034, ¶ 30 (U.N. App. Trib. July 1, 2010)), the rate of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to apply with respect to awards of compensation (see, e.g., Warren v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-059, ¶ 15 (U.N. App. Trib. July 1, 2010)), balancing the staff-member’s right of access to documents with the right of confidentiality (see, e.g., Bertucci v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2011-UNAT-121, ¶¶ 46, 49 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 11, 2011)), the standard of review of classification decisions (see, e.g., Fuentes v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2011-UNAT-105, ¶ 26 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 11, 2011)), the requirement to narrowly tailor requests for access to documents (see, e.g., Rangel v. Registrar of the Int’l Ct. of Justice, Order No. 256 (2016), ¶ 5 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 24, 2016)), the obligation of the organization to state reasons for its decisions (see, e.g., Hepworth v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2011-UNAT-178, ¶ 32 (U.N. App. Trib. Oct. 21, 2011)), the obligation to provide an opportunity for a staff member to respond to allegations against him/her before terminating an appointment (see, e.g., Ortiz v. Secretary General of the Int’l Civil Aviation Org., Judgment No. 2012-UNAT-231, ¶ 44 (U.N. App. Trib. June 29, 2012)), the obligation to compensate an official placed on leave unlawfully (see, e.g., Lauritzen v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-282, ¶ 43 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 28, 2013)), the role of first-level review as fact-finder (see, e.g., Applicant, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-302, ¶ 35 (U.N. App. Trib. 2013)), and recusal (see, e.g., Finniss v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2014-UNAT-397, ¶ 22 (U.N. App. Trib. Apr. 2, 2014)).
• 111Sanwidi v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-084, ¶ 37 (U.N. App. Trib. Oct. 27, 2010)).
• 112See Administrative Tribunal, Asian Development Bank (2023), https://perma.cc/U6AJ-883Y.
• 113Lindsey, Decision No. 1, ¶ 4 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992).
• 114Id.
• 115Mesch & Siy (No.4) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 35, ¶¶ 14, 17–18, 21, 26, 40–42 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 7, 1997) (concerning whether tax reimbursement on salary constitutes a fundamental and essential condition of employment and citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); In re Lindsey, Judgment No. 61 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1962); In re de Los Cobos and Wenger, Judgment No. 391 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1980); In re Settino, Judgment No. 426 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 11, 1980); In re Alonso (No. 3), Judgment No. 514 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 18, 1982); In re Niesing (No. 2), Peeters (No. 2) and Roussot (No. 2), Judgement No. 1118 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 1991); Kaplan v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 19 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Aug. 21, 1953); Davidson v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 88 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Oct. 3, 1963); Oummih, Gordon and Gruber v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 395 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 5, 1987); In re Hopkins and others, Decision No. 111 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. App. Bd. July 8, 1988)).
• 116Perrin, et al. v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 109, ¶¶ 48–54 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. May 6, 2017) (citing In re Sikka (No. 3), Judgment No. 622 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 5, 1984); In re Giroud (No. 2) and Lovrecich, Judgment No. 624 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 5, 1984); In re F. J. (No. 2), Laurent and van der Sluis, Judgment No. 961 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 27, 1989); In re Weber, Judgment No. 1463 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 1995); In re Aelvoet (No. 6) and others, Judgment No. 1712 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1998); D. N. P. v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 2822 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2009); E. A. and others v. EPO, Judgment No. 3291 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 5, 2014); I. H. T. (No. 17) and others v. EPO, Judgment No. 3427 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 11, 2015); Lee v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2014-UNAT-481 (U.N. App. Trib. Oct. 17, 2014); Briscoe v. IBRD, Decision No. 118 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1992); Andronov v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 1157 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 20, 2003)).
• 117Id. ¶ 43 (citing Tintukasiri v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2015-UNAT-526 (U.N. App. Trib. Feb. 26, 2015)).
• 118Id. ¶ 45 (citing In re Hillhouse-Reine and Woess, Judgment No. 1001 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib., Jan. 23, 1990); In re Horsman, Koper, McNeill and Petitfils, Judgment No. 1203 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 1992)).
• 119Suzuki et al. v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 82, ¶¶ 35–39. (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 25, 2008).
• 120Id. ¶ 32.
• 121Id. ¶¶ 35–36.
• 122Id. ¶ 27.
• 123Id. ¶¶ 28, 38.
• 124Amora, Decision No. 24, ¶¶ 24–26, 40 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997).
• 125Alcartado, Decision No. 41, ¶ 12 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998).
• 126Agliam v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 83, ¶¶ 28–31 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 25, 2008).
• 127Abat v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 78, ¶¶ 27, 33, 43, 47 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 7, 2007).
• 128Id. ¶ 43.
• 129Gnanathurai v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 79, ¶¶ 25, 33, 43 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 17, 2007).
• 130Id. ¶ 33.
• 131Zaidi v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 17, ¶¶ 10, 20, 22, 50, 61 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 13, 1996).
• 132Bristol v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 75, ¶¶ 29, 51 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 11, 2006).
• 133Chaudhry v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 23, ¶¶ 21, 35 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 13, 1996).
• 134Ms. M v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 119, ¶¶ 59, 69, 71, 87, 91, 99, 104, 120 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 2, 2018).
• 135Galang, Decision No. 55, ¶¶ 46–47 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2002); de Alwis (No. 4) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 85, ¶¶ 34, 39 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 25, 2008).
• 136See Behuria v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 8, ¶ 23 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 31, 1995) (regarding the requirement to respect prescribed time-limits); Cumaranatunge (No. 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 32, ¶ 5 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 6, 1997) (balancing the competing interests of privacy and transparency); Viswanathan (No. 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 33, ¶ 8 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 6, 1997) (grounds for review of judgments); de Alwis (No. 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 66, ¶ 17 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 28, 2004) (grounds for revision of judgments); Haider v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 43, ¶ 18 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 7, 1999) (discretionary power of the managerial authority in probationary cases); Soerakoesoemah, et al. v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 68, ¶ 14 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan 20, 2005) (principle that the tribunal is not empowered to rewrite a valid contract); Ahmad v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 80, ¶ 45 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 17, 2007) (concerning proportionality), Cahutay v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 90, ¶ 27 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 23, 2009) (lack of proportionality as an error in law); Ms. J v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 116, ¶ 90 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 2, 2018) (proportionality); Mr. K v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 117, ¶ 108 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 2, 2018) (proportionality); Ms. L v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 118, ¶ 123 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 2, 2018) (proportionality of a penalty); Murray v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 91, ¶ 47 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 23, 2009) (principle of non-discrimination); Kalyanaraman (No. 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 98, ¶¶ 28–29 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 8, 2012) (Noblemaire principle); Ms. G (No. 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 106, ¶ 38 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Sept. 23, 2015) (describing consequences of a staff member’s failure to engage in the performance review process); id. ¶ 45 (balance between the requirements of due process and confidentiality); Perrin, et al. (No. 3) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 113, ¶¶ 52, 60–61, 93 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 21, 2018) (acquired rights and fundamental conditions of employment).
• 137See Viswanathan, Decision No. 12, ¶ 13 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1996) (principle of non-discrimination); Lindsey, Decision No. 1, ¶¶ 12, 35 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992); Yan v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 3, ¶ 29 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 8, 1994) (discretion given to decisions of the respondent organization); Lindsey, Decision No. 1, ¶ 7 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992) (utility of performance appraisals); id. ¶ 43 (option of compensation in lieu of specific performance); id. ¶ 45 (possibility of causing harm without tangible loss); Wilkinson (No. 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 34, ¶ 4 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 6, 1997) (grounds for revision of judgments); Ms. D (No. 3) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 111, ¶ 45 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 28, 2018) (limited scope for the revision of judgments); Mr. E, Decision No. 103, ¶ 54 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2014) (existence of generally recognized principles of international administrative law); Ms. D (No. 3), Decision No. 111, ¶ 56 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2018) (determination of the conditions of employment); Yamagishi v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 65, ¶ 44 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 28, 2004) (function of the probationary period); Ms. C., Decision No. 58, ¶ 12 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2003) (legality of settlement agreements); Yan, Decision No. 3, ¶ 31 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1994) (principle that the tribunal should not substitute its judgment for that of the administration); id. ¶¶ 20–21 (shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases); Wilkinson v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No 10, ¶¶ 7, 17 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 8, 1996); Yan, Decision No. 3, ¶ 30 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1994) (discretion of the administration in establishing the grade/classification of a position).
• 138See Mr. H v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 108, ¶ 56 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 6, 2017) (concerning the proportionality of dismissing a staff member for pursuing criminal proceedings against another staff member in national courts).
• 139See Mr. Ocampo v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 122, ¶ 14 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 28, 2019) (exhaustion of internal remedies); Ms. A v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 87, ¶ 30 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 23, 2009) (discretion of the administration in making appointment and promotion decisions).
• 140Mr. A v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 77, ¶ 31 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 2, 2006) (calculation of damages); Shimabuku (Nos. 1 and 2) v. Asian Dev. Bank, Decision No. 72, ¶ 30 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 19, 2005) (person who claims a contract was signed under duress bears the burden of proving it).
• 141From 1965 until April 5, 1994, it was known as the Council of Europe Appeals Board. See Council of Europe, Common Focus and Autonomy of International Administrative Tribunals: International Colloquy 6 (2017); Sergio Sansotta, The Administrative Tribunal of the Council of Europe, in Current Issues in the Law and Practice of International Administrative Tribunals 19 (2006).
• 142See List of Appeals Brought Before the Tribunal, Council of Europe, https://perma.cc/S3PX-RX6U (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 143See Yuksek (II) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 665/2020, ¶ 56 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Feb. 12, 2021).
• 144See id. ¶ 62.
• 145See id.
• 146See id. ¶ 69.
• 147See id. ¶ 70.
• 148See id. ¶ 73.
• 149See id. ¶ 79.
• 150See id. ¶ 86.
• 151See, e.g., Emezie v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 344/2005, ¶ 34 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Jan. 20, 2006) (on the right of staff members to information); Spiegel v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 320/2003, ¶ 43 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Oct. 8, 2004) (on the duty of appointment panels to act impartially); Beygo (II) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. Nos. 211/1995, Nos. 213–214/1995, No. 220/1996, Nos. 222–223/1996, Nos. 227–228/1997, Nos. 229–230/1997, and Nos. 242–243/1998, ¶ 74 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 28, 1999) (considering requests that a decision-maker withdraw).
• 152See Yuksek (II), Decision on App. No. 665/2020, ¶¶ 51, 68, 73 and 86 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2021).
• 153See Zimmermann v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 226/1996, ¶ 29, (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 24, 1997) (citing In re Chadsey, Judgment No. 122 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1968)).
• 154See Baron v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. Nos. 492–497/2011, Nos. 504–508/2011, No. 510/2011, No. 512/2011, Nos. 515–520/2011, No. 527/2012, ¶ 53 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Sept. 26, 2012).
• 155See Devaux (II) and (III) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. No. 587/2018 and No. 588/2018, ¶ 68 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Oct. 8, 2018).
• 156See Nyctelius v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 321/2003, ¶¶ 39–40 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2005).
• 157The COEAT has also cited to the ILOAT regarding the non-binding nature of opinions of the Disciplinary Board (see Roose (I) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Social Development Fund, Decision on Apps. No. 187/1994 and No. 193/1994, ¶ 115 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Sept. 29, 1995); Ernould (I) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Social Development Fund, Decision on Apps. No. 189/1994 and No. 195/1994, ¶ 143 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Sept. 5, 1994); Lelégard (I) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Social Development Fund, Decision on Apps. No. 190/1994, No. 196/1994, No. 197/1994, and No. 201/1995, ¶ 160 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 25, 1994); and Marechal v. Governor of the Social Development Fund of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 208/1995, ¶ 61 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Mar. 29, 1996)), breach of professional duties as a disciplinary offence (see Ernould (I), Decision on Apps. No. 189/1994 and No. 195/1994, ¶ 140 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1994); Lelégard (I), Decision on Apps. No. 190/1994, No. 196/1994, No. 197/1994, and No. 201/1995, ¶ 157 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1994); and Marechal, App. No. 208/1995, ¶ 59 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1996)), lack of proportionality as an error of law (see Ernould (I), Decision on Apps. No. 189/1994 and No. 195/1994, ¶ 155 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1994); Lelégard (I), Decision on Apps. No. 190/1994, No. 196/1994, No. 197/1994, and No. 201/1995, ¶ 178 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1994); Fender (I) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 178/1994, ¶ 42 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Mar. 2, 1994); Martz v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 624/2019, ¶ 62 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 6, 2020); and Marechal, Decision on App. No. 208/1995, ¶ 88 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1996)), respect for staff members’ dignity (see Girasoli v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 266/2001, ¶ 37 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Oct. 12, 2001)), the ongoing interest of a retired staff member in exposing a breach of due process (see Peukert (III) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 267/2001, ¶ 24 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Jan. 31, 2002)), establishing harassment through an accumulation of events (see Parienti v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 285/2001, ¶ 39 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. May 16, 2003)), burden of proof on the party pleading harassment or other inappropriate behavior (see Parienti, Decision on App. No. 285/2001, ¶ 58 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2003); X v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 605/2019, ¶ 63 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Oct. 31, 2019)), the dependent-child allowance (see ERB v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 293/2002, ¶ 51 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. June 27, 2002)), consent to an administrative decision rendering a challenge to it inadmissible (see Dăgăliţă v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 392/2007, ¶¶ 40–41 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Feb. 29, 2008)), the principle that communications are deemed effective when sent, not when actually read (see Švarca v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 416/2008, ¶ 34 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. June 24, 2009)), the discretion of the administration with regard to application of the principle of equal treatment (see Devaux (II), Decision on Apps. No. 587/2018 and No. 588/2018, ¶ 68 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2018)), the applicability of general principles of law and basic human rights principles (see id. ¶ 98), the duty of the employer to inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their interests (see id. ¶ 108), the principle that there is no promise of renewal of fixed-term contracts (see id. ¶ 109), the organization’s duties in the context of an investigation of harassment (see Bauer v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank, App. No. 594/2018, ¶ 60 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. June 20, 2019)), the principle that there is no need to prove intent in a harassment claim (see id. ¶ 61), proportionality in disciplinary measures (see id. ¶ 63), compliance with time limits (see Ana v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 603/2019, ¶ 47 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Oct. 31, 2019)), the principle that a practice cannot become legally binding if it contravenes a written rule already in force (see Ubowksa (I) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 617/2019, ¶ 29 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Dec. 17, 2019); and Zrvandyan v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 638/2020, ¶ 49 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Nov. 30, 2020)), the proposition that there is no need for administration to provide further reasons when accepting the recommendations of an internal appeals body (see Martz, Decision on App. No. 624/2019, ¶ 55 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2020)), the discretion of administration, subject to the principle of proportionality (see id. ¶ 61), the proposition that practice can be created by an announcement, by an administrative circular, or otherwise (see Zrvandyan, Decision on App. No. 638/2020, ¶ 49 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Nov. 2020)), the proposition that the performance appraisal is generally the responsibility of a staff-member’s immediate supervisor (see Levertova v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank, Decision on App. No. 650/2020, ¶ 52 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Feb. 12, 2021)), the discretion of the controlling authority (see Peukert (I) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. Nos. 115–117/1985, ¶ 97 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Feb. 14, 1986); Fuchs (II) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 130/1985, ¶ 46 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Nov. 10, 1986); and Bartsch (II) and Peukert (II) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. Nos. 147–148/1986, ¶ 51 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Mar. 31, 1987)), administrative review of the organization’s discretionary authority (see Peukert (I), Decision on Apps. Nos. 115–117/1985, ¶ 99 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1986); Fuchs (II), Decision on App. No. 130/1985, ¶ 48 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1986); Koenig v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 131/1986, ¶ 49 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. July 25, 1986); Bartsch (II) and Peukert (II), Decision on Apps. Nos. 147–148/1986, ¶ 53 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1987); and Beygo (I) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 166/1990, ¶ 40 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. June 26, 1992)), the principle that an authority is bound by its own rules (see Peukert (I), Decision on Apps. Nos. 115–117/1985, ¶ 100 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1986); and Bartsch (II) and Peukert (II), Apps. Nos. 147–148/1986, ¶ 54 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1987)), and the importance of impartiality in recruitment procedures (see Feriozzi-Kleijssen v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, App. No. 172/1993, ¶ 31 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Mar. 25, 1994)).
• 158See Smyth v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 209/1995, ¶ 33 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 29, 1996) (concerning the interpretation of pension rules); Fuchs and others v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. Nos. 231-38/1997, ¶¶ 51, 57–58 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1998) (concerning comparing English and French languages versions of a report).
• 159See Peukert (I), Decision on Apps. Nos. 115–117/1985 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1986); Fuchs (II), Decision on App. No. 130/1985 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1986); Bartsch (II) and Peukert (II), Decision on Apps. Nos. 147–148/1986 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1987); Beygo (I), Decision on App. No. 166/1990 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1992); Roose (I), Decision on Apps. No. 187/1994 and No. 193/1994 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1995); Ernould (I), Decision on Apps. No. 189/1994 and 195/1994 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1994); Lelégard (I), Decision on Apps. No. 190/1994, No. 196/1994, No. 197/1994, and No. 201/1995 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1994); Marechal, Decision on App. No. 208/1995 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 1996); and Bouillon (II) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 212/1995 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. May 25, 1995).
• 160See Brechenmacher (II) v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. No. 622/2019, ¶ 89 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Feb. 5, 2020).
• 161See Stevens v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on Apps. Nos. 101–113/1984, ¶ 65 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. May 15, 1985); Devaux (II) and (III), Decision on Apps. No. 587/2018 and No. 588/2018, ¶ 109 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2018).
• 162See Organisational Structure Administrative Tribunal, African Development Bank, https://perma.cc/7MJ3-E82D (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 163See Administrative Tribunal Judgments, African Development Bank, https://perma.cc/9F3Z-DTYF (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 164Search carried out on September 8, 2021 on combined jurisprudence July 1999 to December 2020. It should be noted that the figures cited represent the total number of hits for each IAT in the AfDBAT jurisprudence, some of which are citations by the parties. Even when disregarding citations by the Parties, however, the AfDBAT has itself cited to other IATs in 42 out of its first 132 decisions, or roughly about one third of cases.
• 165See D.S.A. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 138, ¶ 17 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 24, 2020) (citing DV v. IFC, Decision No. 551, ¶ 50 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 4, 2016); R (No. 2) v. WHO, Judgment No. 4099, consideration 3 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 6, 2019)).
• 166Id. ¶ 20 (citing DI v. IBRD, Decision No. 533, ¶ 85 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Apr. 8, 2016); Marchesini, Decision No. 260, ¶ 30 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2002); DD v. IBRD, Decision No. 526, ¶¶ 58–59 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 2015)).
• 167Id. ¶¶ 71–72 (citing In re Gracia de Muñiz, Judgment No. 269, consideration 2 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1976); In re de Roos, Judgment No. 1745, consideration 7 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 1998); O. T. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2207, consideration 9 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2003)).
• 168Id. ¶ 73 (citing Mr. “F”, Judgment No. 2005-1, ¶ 117 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2005)).
• 169Id. ¶ 81 (citing Pinto, Decision No. 56, ¶ 11 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988); In re Gale, Judgment No. 474, ¶ 3 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1982)).
• 170See id. ¶ 21 (citing Husain v. IBRD, Decision No. 266, ¶ 32 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 24, 2002); DV, Decision No. 551, ¶¶ 58–59 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2016)); id. ¶ 30 (citing In re Spaans, Judgment No. 2092 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 2002)).
• 171See id. ¶ 68 (citing DI, Decision No. 533, ¶¶ 118–22 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2016)); id. ¶ 69 (citing P.-M. (No. 2) v. WHO, Judgment No. 3688 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2016)).
• 172See T. K. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 12, ¶ 17 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Apr. 12, 2001) (citing In re Price (No. 2), Judgment No. 342 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 8, 1978); In re Garcia, Judgment No. 591 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1983); In re Dunand and Jacquemod, Judgment No. 929 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1988); Moser v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 388 (U.N. Admin. Trib. June 4, 1987); Pinto, Decision No. 56 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988); and D’Aoust, Judgment No. 1996-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1996)).
• 173See C. A. W. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 50, ¶¶ 58, 69–70 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. May 11, 2006) (citing Suntharalingam v. IBRD, Decision No. 6, ¶¶ 34–36 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 27 1981); Salle v. IBRD, Decision No. 10, ¶ 59 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 8, 1982); Samuel-Thambiah v. IBRD, Decision No. 133, ¶ 133 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 10, 1993); Zwaga v. IBRD, Decision No. 225, ¶¶ 32, 54–56 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 2000); In re Kersaudy, Judgment No. 152 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 26, 1970); In re Schawalder-Vrancheva (No. 2), Judgment No. 226 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 6, 1974); In re Schickel-Zuber, Judgment No. 1212, ¶ 3 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 10, 1993)).
• 174See N. O. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 62, ¶ 82 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 8, 2008) (citing Omosola v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 484, ¶ 2 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Oct. 19, 1990); Edongo v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 987, ¶ 66 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 22, 2000); Gnanathurai, Decision No. 79, ¶ 33 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2007)).
• 175See id. ¶¶ 85–88 (citing Kwakwa v. IFC, Decision No. 300 (World Bank Admin. Trib. July 19, 2003); D, Decision No. 304 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2003)).
• 176See D. T. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 119, ¶¶ 33–34, 64, 66, 70 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Apr. 19, 2019) (citing A.G. S. v. UNIDO, Judgment No. 3106, ¶ 4 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2012); J.-F. S. v. Int’l Crim. Police Org., Judgment No. 1216 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 10, 1993); R. S. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 2745, ¶ 13 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2008); Saberi v. IBRD, Decision No. 5, ¶ 24 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 27, 1981); and Mendez v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 268, at 391 (U.N. Admin. Trib. May 8, 1981)).
• 177See J. N. N. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 25, ¶¶ 47–48 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 19, 2002) (citing the WBAT and ILOAT); Komlan v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 26, ¶¶ 33–34 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 19, 2002) (citing the WBAT and ILOAT); M. B. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 42, ¶¶ 43, 45 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 1, 2005) (citing the ILOAT and WBAT); B. L. M. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 65, ¶ 30 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 25, 2008) (citing the UNAdT and ABDAT); H. N. M. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 70, ¶ 64 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 2009) (citing the UNAdT and WBAT); S. M. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 103, ¶ 70 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 26, 2018) (citing the ILOAT and WBAT).
• 178See A. C. v Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 22, ¶¶ 27–29, 32, 38–39 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 9 , 2001) (citing Pinto, Decision No. 56, ¶ 11 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988); In re Gale, Judgment No. 474, ¶ 3 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1982); In re Hoefnagels, Judgment No. 25 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 12, 1957); and In re Quiñones, Judgment No. 447 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 14, 1981)); Jenkins-Johnston v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 38, ¶¶ 51–52 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 1, 2005) (citing Carew v. IBRD, Decision No. 142, ¶ 30 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 19, 1995); Kwakwa, Decision No. 300 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2003); and D, Decision No. 304 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2003)); A. R. R. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 77, ¶¶ 26–33 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 15, 2011) (citing C.-A. M. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2962 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2011); Messrs M. A. and others v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 2722 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2008); B. E.-C. v. IFRC, Judgment No. 2912, ¶ 4 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2010); and In re Fournier D’Albe, Judgment No. 364, ¶ 8 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1978)); S. O. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 91, ¶ 30 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. June 12, 2015) (citing C. T. v. AITIC, Judgment No. 2781 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2008); A. N. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 3330 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 28, 2014); and A. S. v. UPU, Judgment No. 3333 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2014)); M. M. v. African Legal Support Facility, Judgment No. 127, ¶¶ 29, 43, 49 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 18, 2019) (citing S. K. v. CTBTO PrepCom, Judgment No. 3172 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 2, 2012); S. (No. 2) v. WTO, Judgment 3914 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 24, 2018); and D. v. WHO, Judgment No. 3582 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2016)); W. B. O.-O. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 21, ¶ 8 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 9, 2001) (citing In re van der Peet (No. 10), Judgment 802 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Mar. 13, 1987); and In re Der Hovsepian (No. 2), Judgment No. 1306 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 31, 1994)); and D. T. v. African Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 111, ¶ 24 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 4, 2018) (citing Vick v. IBRD, Decision No. 295 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 20, 2003); and Malik v. IBRD, Decision No. 333 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 13, 2005)).
• 179See B. K. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 13, ¶ 31 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 25, 2001) (citing Pinto, Decision No. 56, ¶ 11 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988)); Asongwed v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 23, ¶ 39 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 9, 2001) (citing In re Varnet, Judgment No. 179 (Int’l Lab. Org Admin. Trib. Nov. 8, 1971)); J. A. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 32, ¶¶ 26–27 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 19, 2003) (citing Mr. “X” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1994-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Aug. 31, 1994)); B. A. I. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 33, ¶ 23 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 23, 2004) (citing In re Palma (No. 5), Judgment No. 1845 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 1999)); K. S. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 44, ¶¶ 59–62 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 1, 2005) (distinguishing practice of the ILOAT and WBAT); Bate v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 64, ¶ 25 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 25, 2008) (citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); Arbibou v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 74, ¶ 17 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. June 29, 2010) (citing Messrs M. A. and others, Judgment No. 2722 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2008)); L. T. K. M. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 76, ¶ 54 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 15, 2011) (citing M. d R. C. e S. d V. v. WMO, Judgment No. 2861, ¶ 53 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2009)); A. K. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 89, ¶ 17 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 12, 2014) (citing van Gent (No. 5) v. IBRD, Decision No. 20, ¶ 26 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 22, 1985)); S. G. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 90, ¶ 36 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 12, 2014) (citing E. C. v. OPCW, Judgment No. 2324, ¶ 13 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 2004)); B. O. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 95, ¶ 93 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 30, 2016) (citing Gnanathurai, Decision No. 79 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2007)); Bate v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 97, ¶ 165 (Afr. Dev. Bank Aug. 14, 2007) (citing P.-M. (No. 2), Judgment No. 3688 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2016)); S. A. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 104, ¶ 54 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Jan. 26, 2018) (citing In re del Valle Franco Fernandez, Judgment No. 1610 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 1997)); K. K. D. F. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Order No. 114, ¶ 2 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2019) (citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); A. O. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 129, ¶ 36 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 18, 2019) (citing In re Lakey, Judgment No. 475 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1982)); R. I. U. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 131, ¶ 23 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 18, 2019) (citing V.C. B. v. EFTA, Judgment No. 3126, consideration 17 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2012)); H. B. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment 134, ¶ 49 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 24, 2020) (citing Mendez, Judgement No. 268, at 391 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1981)); I. G. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 136, ¶ 36 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 24, 2020) (citing Mr. “F”, Judgment No. 2005-1, ¶ 117 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2005)); A. A. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 137, ¶ 41 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 24, 2020) (citing Mr. “F”, Judgment No. 2005-1, ¶ 117 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2005)); H. G. v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 142, ¶ 24 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 11, 2020) (citing A. N., Judgment No. 3330, consideration 2 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014)).
• 180See B. A. I., Judgment No. 33, ¶ 23 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2004) (citing In re Palma (No. 5), Judgment No. 1845 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1999)).
• 181See A. K., Judgment No. 89, ¶ 17 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2014) (citing van Gent (No. 5), Decision No. 20, ¶ 26 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1985)).
• 182See B. O., Judgment No. 95, ¶ 93 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2016) (citing Gnanathurai, Decision No. 79 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2007)).
• 183See H. B., Judgment 134, ¶ 49 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2020) (citing Mendez, Judgement No. 268, at 391 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1981)).
• 184See I. G., Judgment No. 136, ¶ 36 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2020) (citing Mr. “F”, Judgment No. 2005-1, ¶ 117 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2005)).
• 185See NATO Administrative Tribunal, NATO, https://perma.cc/NPP7-NF9M (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 186See Statistics of Judgments and Orders of the NATO Administrative Tribunal 2013-2022, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, https://perma.cc/BS8V-YH62 (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 187Search carried out on September 8, 2021, on combined jurisprudence from 2013 to 2019.
• 188See A et al. v. NATO International Staff, Judgment No. AT-J(2018)0015, ¶¶ 85–94 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Aug. 30, 2018); SD v. NATO International Staff, Judgment No. AT-J(2018)0016, ¶¶ 77–87 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Aug. 30, 2018); and EB v. NATO International Staff, Judgment No. AT-J(2018)0019, ¶¶ 64–69 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 5, 2018). In the same three parallel cases, moreover, the Tribunal cited to both the COEAT and the UNAT to support the proposition, also widely accepted, that it can raise questions of its own competence sua sponte. See A et al., Judgment No. AT-J(2018)0015, ¶ 75 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2018); SD, Judgment No. AT-J(2018)0016, ¶ 66 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2018); and EB, Judgment No. AT-J(2018)0019, ¶ 56 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2018).
• 189See Perrin, et al, Decision No. 109, ¶¶ 48–54 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2017).
• 190See JF v. NATO Support Agency, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0001, ¶¶ 34–37 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 21, 2013) (citing J.H. V.M. v. EPO, Judgment No. 3214 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2013); A. S. v. IOM, Judgment No. 3217 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2013); O. S. v. EPO, Judgment No. 3228 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2013); Suntharalingam, Decision No. 6 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); and de Raet, Decision No. 85 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1989)).
• 191See Lindsey, Decision No. 1 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992); Yan, Decision No. 3 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1994).
• 192See JF, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0001, ¶¶ 47–49 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2013) (citing C. G. v. ESO, Judgment No. 2599 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007); Buranavanichkit, Decision No. 7 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1982); and Salle, Decision No. 10, (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1982)).
• 193See JA v. NATO Joint Warfare Centre, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0007, ¶ 39 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 14, 2013) (citing In re Khelifati, Judgment No. 207 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 14, 1973); In re van Walstijn, Judgment No. 1984 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 12, 2000); S. N.-S. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2773 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2009); and C. C. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 2944 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2010)).
• 194See MK v. NATO Headquarters Allied Air Command, Judgment No. AT-J(2017)0023, ¶ 41 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 21, 2017) (citing T. N. v. EPO, Judgment No. 2339 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 2004); In re Spaans, Judgment No. 2092 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2002); and H. K. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2261 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 16, 2003)).
• 195See ZS v. NATO International Staff, Judgment No. AT-J(2014)0009, ¶ 25 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 24, 2014) (citing Sanwidi, Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-084, ¶ 37 (U.N. App. Trib. 2010)).
• 196About the OECD Administrative Tribunal, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://perma.cc/45LJ-SEMM (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).
• 197OECD Administrative Tribunal, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://perma.cc/9BZB-SQ7L (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 198Search carried out on September 8, 2021 on combined jurisprudence from 1992 to 2020.
• 199AA v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Cases No. 85 and No. 88 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Apr. 23, 2018); and KK v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Cases No. 86 and No. 89 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Apr. 23, 2018).
• 200See AA, Judgment in Cases No. 85 and No. 88 (Org. For Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2018); and KK, Judgment in Cases No. 86 and No. 89 (Org. For Economic Coop. and Dev Admin Trib. 2018) (citing In re Georgiadis, Kazinetz, McCallum and Polycarpou, Judgment No. 1226 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 10, 1994); In re Raths (No. 2), Judgment No. 1392 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 1995); In re Agoncillo, Colatosti, Gilland, Jacobsen, Palluel and Pappalardo, Judgment No. 1446 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 1995); In re Dekker (No. 3), Judgment No. 1917 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2018); Prévost v. Secretary-General, Decision on App. Nos. 477–484/2011 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 20, 2012); Brannan and others v. Secretary-General, Decision on App. Nos. 571–576/2017 and 578/2017 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Nov. 14, 2017); and Suzuki et al., Decision No. 82 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2008)).
• 201ILOAT Judgment No. 1917 is cited by the ADBAT Judgment No. 82. The OECDAT Judgment in Cases No. 85 and No. 88 cites to both separately.
• 202See AA v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 91, ¶¶ 56, 59, 77, 78, 84 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 2019).
• 203See id. ¶¶ 56, 59, 77, 84. See also XXX v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 75, ¶ 10 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 6, 2014) (citing In re Kowasch, Judgment No. 1734 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 1998); R.S. K. v ICC, Judgment No. 3027 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2011); and Zewdu v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/043 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 2, 2011)); XXX v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 77, ¶ 30 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Dec. 3, 2014) (citing P.A.C. R. v. IPO, Judgment No. 3268 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 5, 2014); and Mandol v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/013 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Jan. 13, 2011)); and AA v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 90, ¶ 33 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Oct. 3, 2018) (citing L.A. M. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 2584 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007); In re de Villegas (No. 5), Judgment No. 509 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 3, 1982); In re Tekouk, Judgment No. 2066 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 12, 2001); Hilpern v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 57 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Sept. 9, 1955); and Guillot v. Commission of the European Communities, Judgment in Case No. 53/72, 1974 Eur. Ct. Rep. 791 (Second Chamber 1974)).
• 204See XXX v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 79, ¶¶ 54–58 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Aug. 7, 2015).
• 205See W. v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 60, ¶ 3 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Mar. 7, 2006).
• 206See W. v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 61, ¶ 7 n.2 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Mar. 7, 2006).
• 207See E. v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 66, at 8 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Apr. 12, 2010).
• 208See XXX v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 73, ¶ 30 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2014).
• 209See AA v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 93, ¶ 62 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Oct. 26, 2020).
• 210See D v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 50, at 4 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Mar. 8, 2001).
• 211See Administrative Tribunal, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, https://perma.cc/L2A8-6LER (last visited Sept. 21, 2023) (stating that “decisions prior to 2007 were adopted under the previous Grievance and Appeals Procedures”).
• 212Id.
• 213Id.
• 214See C. v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 01/03 (Liability and Remedy), ¶¶ 55–60 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Jan. 9, 2004) (citing Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2002-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); D’Aoust, Judgment No. 1996-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1996); Lindsey, Decision No. 1 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992); In re Vollering, Judgment No. 1194 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 1992); and de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)).
• 215Id. ¶ 88.
• 216Id. ¶ 86.
• 217See Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/06, Section 6.3.4 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Oct. 4, 2019).
• 218Id. at 14–15 and 23–25 (citing In re Darricades, Judgment No. 67 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1962); In re Chadsey, Judgment No. 122 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1968); In re Bustos, Judgment No. 701 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1985); L. K. v. EPO, Judgment No. 3459 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 11, 2015); K. v. WHO, Judgment No. 3551 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 30, 2015); D. v. EPO, Judgment No. 4045 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 26, 2018); Madhusudan, Decision No. 215 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999); Teixeira, Judgement No. 233 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1978); Mr. “A”, Judgment No. 1999-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1999); and Amora, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997)).
• 219Id. at 24–25.
• 220Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/02, ¶ 71 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 20, 2020); Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/03, ¶ 44 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 20, 2020); Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/04, ¶ 42; (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 20, 2020); and Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/05, ¶ 41 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 20, 2020) (all citing In re Burt, Judgment No. 1385 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 1995); In re Bustos, Judgment No. 701 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1985); and Amora, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997)).
• 221Id.
• 222See Appellant, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/04, ¶¶ 23–54 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2020) (de Cooker, dissenting); and Appellant, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/05, ¶¶ 29–50 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2020) (de Cooker, dissenting).
• 223See Grassi v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2016/AT/01, ¶ 33 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Jan. 18, 2016) (citing S. G. G. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2882 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2010)); Appellant vs. EBRD, Decision in Cases Nos. 2019/AT/07 and 2020/AT/05 (Preliminary Decision), ¶ 56 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Aug. 29, 2022) (citing In re van der Peet (No. 13), Judgment No. 934 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 8, 1988)); Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/08, ¶¶ 65, 106 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. July 27, 2020) (citing G. M. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 4207 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 10, 2020); and S. M.-S. v. WHO, Judgment No. 3365 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2014)); and Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2020/AT/02, ¶¶ 58–59 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. May 8, 2020) (citing In re Niesing (No. 2), Peeters (No. 2) and Roussot (No. 2), Judgment No. 1118 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1991); In re Allaert and Warmels (No. 3), Judgment No. 1821 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1999); and É. H. v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 3274 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 5, 2014)).
• 224See Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2006/AT/04 (Liability), ¶ 72 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Jan. 5, 2007) (citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); A. v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2017/AT/02, ¶ 27 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Apr. 18, 2017) (citing BG v. IFC, Decision No. 434 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 29, 2010); and O v. IBRD, Decision No. 337 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 4, 2005)); Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2017/AT/03, ¶ 4.11 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. May 23, 2017) (citing Agerschou, Decision No. 114 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1992)). On one occasion, the EBRDAT cited to both the ILOAT and WBAT. See Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2020/AT/04, ¶ 47 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Apr. 14, 2020) (citing S. v. WTO, Judgment No. 3868 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2018)) and ¶ 60 (citing Lewin, Decision No. 152 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1996)).
• 225See Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2020/AT/03, ¶ 51 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Apr. 30, 2020) (citing Mensah v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2010/202 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Nov. 19, 2010)).
• 226See Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Case No. 2019/AT/09, ¶ 53 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Mar. 6, 2020) (citing Riecan v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2017-UNAT-802 (U.N. App. Trib. Oct. 27, 2017)).
• 227See Appellant v. EBRD, Decision in Cases No. 2018/AT/01 and No. 2018/AT/04, at 8 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Dec. 27, 2018) (distinguishing IMFAT case law). See also id. at 16 (Wolf, dissenting) (citing Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2002-1 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002)).
• 228See Statute of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal, arts. 1–2 (July 1, 1995).
• 229Hans v. Commonwealth Secretariat and Ebert, Regional Director of the Commonwealth Secretariat Youth Programme, Judgment No. CSAT/1 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Oct. 1998); Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 1) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001); Mohsin v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Nov. 9, 2001); Faruqi v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/5 (No. 1) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Feb. 23, 2002); Faruqi v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/5 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Nov. 22, 2002); Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Ass’n v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/7 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Oct. 10, 2003); Sumukan Ltd. v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/8 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Apr. 25, 2005); Saddington v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/11 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. June 2006); Ayeni v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/12 (No. 1) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Oct. 12, 2007); Ayeni v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/12 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Aug. 22, 2008); Keeling v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/14 (No. 1) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. June 2009); A K v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/14 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. June 2010); M H v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT/15 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. June 2010); Oyas v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/16 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Aug. 26, 2011); Oyas v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/16 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. May 21, 2012); C H v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. 17 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Jan. 10, 2012); P H v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/18 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. May 30, 2012); Kaberere v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. 20 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. July 26, 2013); Addo v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/21 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Apr. 9, 2014); Bandara v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/22 (No. 1) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. July 18, 2014); Singh v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/27 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. May 8, 2015); Dogra v. the Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/28 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. May 8, 2015); Akintade v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/33 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Apr. 29, 2016); Matus v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/37 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Dec. 1, 2016); Venuprasad v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/40 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Apr. 16, 2018); Venuprasad v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/40 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Sept. 21, 2018); Ojiambo v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/41 (No. 1) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Dec. 14, 2018); Ojiambo v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/41 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. May 24, 2019); HH, HL & DW v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/42 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Oct. 11, 2019); Commonwealth Secretariat v. Venuprasad, Judgment No. CSAT APL/43 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. July 26, 2019).
• 230A K, Judgment No. CSAT/14 (No. 2) ¶ 50 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2010) (citing Bustani v. OPCW, Judgment No. 2232 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 16, 2003)). For more on the Bustani decision, see Jan Klabbers, The Bustani Case before the ILOAT: Constitutionalism in Disguise?, 53 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 455 (2004).
• 231A K , Judgment No. CSAT/14 (No. 2) ¶ 51 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2010) (citing S. C. v. WHO, Judgment No. 2602 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007); M. A. and others v. ITU, Judgment No. 2609 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007); A. S. v. CERN, Judgment No. 2615 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007); B. F. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2636 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 11, 2007); F. B.-B. and M. C. v. CERN, Judgment No. 2655 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 11, 2007)).
• 232Id. ¶ 62 (citing M. P. v. ITU, Judgment No. 2200 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2003); H. K., Judgment No. 2261 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2003); L.F.R. v. ITU, Judgment No. 2435 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2005); R. S., Judgment No. 2745 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2008); N. O. v. IFRC, Judgment No. 2587 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007)).
• 233Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 2) (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001).
• 234Id. ¶ 4.
• 235Id. (citing In re Chawla, Judgment No. 195 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1972); In re Vianney, Judgment No. 1158 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1992); In re Schimmel, Judgment No. 1380 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 1995); In re Matthews, Judgment No. 2004 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2001)).
• 236Id. ¶ 6. (citing In re Ghaffar, Judgment No. 320 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 21, 1977); In re Bakker, Judgment No. 931 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 8, 1988)).
• 237Faruqi, Judgment No. CSAT/5 (No. 1), ¶ 60 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2002) (citing In re Fagotto, Judgment No. 1260 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 1993); In re Zhu, Judgment No. 1509 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 11, 1996)).
• 238For additional cases citing to the ILOAT, see Faruqi, Judgment No. CSAT/5 (No. 2), ¶ 8 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2002) (citing In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1972); M. H. J. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 2138 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 2002)); Sumukan Ltd., Judgment No. CSAT/8 (No. 2), ¶ 4.43 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2005) (citing In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1972)); C H, Judgment No. CSAT/17, ¶ 138 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2012) (citing F. L., Judgment No. 2967 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2011)); P H, Judgment No. CSAT APL/18, ¶ 38 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2012) (citing Z. P. v. WHO, Judgment No. 2313 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2004); C. G. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 2979 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2011)); Addo, Judgment No. CSAT APL/21, ¶ 81 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2014) (citing In re Sita Ram, Judgment No. 367 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1978)); Bandara v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/22 (No. 2), ¶¶ 74, 78 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Apr. 1, 2015) (citing In re Sita Ram, Judgment No. 367 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1972); H. L., Judgment No. 3347 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014)); Dogra, Judgment No. CSAT APL/28, ¶ 14 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2015) (citing In re Ayyangar, Judgment No. 529 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 18, 1982)); Matus, Judgment No. CSAT APL/37 (No. 2), ¶¶ 100, 113 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2016) (citing In re James, Judgment No. 1052 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 26, 1990); In re Felkai, Judgment No. 1696 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1998); E. O. G. v. Pan American Health Organization, Judgment No. 3440 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 11, 2015)); Venuprasad, Judgment No. CSAT APL/40 (No. 2), ¶ 79 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2018) (citing In re Dicancro, Judgment No. 427 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 11, 1980)).
• 239Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 1), at 1 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001) (citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)).
• 240See Hans, Judgment No. CSAT/1, at 3, 6 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Oct. 1998) (citing In re Ellen Kahal, Judgment No. 44 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 13, 1960); Salle, Decision No. 10 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1982)); Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 1), ¶¶ 2, 8.3 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001) (citing de Merode et al., Decision No. 1, at 13 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); In re Rebeck, Judgment No. 77 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 1, 1964); In re Hrdina, Judgment No. 229 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 6, 1974)); Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Ass’n, Judgment No. CSAT/7, at 2–4 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2003) (citing In re de Los Cobos and Wenger, Judgment No. 391 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1980)); In re Niesing (No. 2), Peeters (No. 2) and Roussot (No. 2), Judgment No. 1118 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1991); In re Berthet (No. 2), Judgment No. 1912 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2000); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1, (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); Saddington, Judgment No. CSAT/11, ¶¶ 12–13, 27, 35 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2006) (citing In re Waghorn, Judgment No. 28 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 12, 1957); In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1972); In re Gieser, Judgment No. 782 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 12, 1986); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); Aglion v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 56 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Dec. 14, 1954)); Ayeni, Judgment No. CSAT/12 (No. 1), ¶¶ 33–35 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2007) (citing In re Duberg, Judgment No. 17 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1955); In re O’Connell, Judgment No. 469 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1982); In re Byrne-Sutton, Judgment No. 592 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 20, 1983); Howrani and 4 others v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 4 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Aug. 25, 1951)); Ayeni, Judgment No. CSAT/12 (No. 2), ¶¶ 55–57 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2008) (citing In re Rombach, Judgment No. 460 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 14, 1981); In re Djoehana (No. 2), Judgment No. 538 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 18, 1982); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1, at 13 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); Keeling, Judgment No. CSAT/14 (No. 1), ¶¶ 42–45, 52 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2009) (citing Higgins v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 92 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 16, 1964); Levcik v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 192 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Oct. 11, 1974); In re Gross, Judgment No. 703 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 14, 1985)); M H, Judgment No. CSAT/15, ¶¶ 66, 86 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2010) (citing In re Cervantes (No. 4), Kagermeier (No. 5) and Munnix (No. 2), Judgment No. 1897 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2000); A. F. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 2377 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2004); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981); Talwar v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 343 (U.N. Admin. Trib. June 3, 1985)); Oyas v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/16, ¶¶ 86–87 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. Aug. 26, 2011) (citing In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2000); W. G. v. ITU, Judgment No. 2510 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 28, 2005); BA v. IBRD, Decision No. 423 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 9, 2009)); Kaberere, Judgment No. CSAT/20, ¶¶ 83, 98 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2013) (citing Manson v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 742 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 22, 1955); S. C., Judgment No. 2602 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2007)); Singh, Judgment No. CSAT APL/27, ¶¶ 51, 56 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2015) (citing In re Ayyangar, Judgment No. 529 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1982); BA, Decision No. 423 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 2009)); Venuprasad, Judgment No. CSAT APL/40, ¶¶ 134, 148 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2018) (citing Lindblad v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 183 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Apr. 23, 1974); Lebaga v. IMO Secretary-General, Judgement No. 340 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 2, 1984); In re Gale, Judgment No. 474 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1982)); Ojiambo, Judgment No. CSAT APL/41 (No. 1), ¶ 51 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2018 ) (citing In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1972); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)); Commonwealth Secretariat, Decision No. CSAT APL/43 ¶¶ 134, 296 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2019) (citing Lindblad, Judgement No. 183 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1974); Lebaga, Judgement No. 340 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1984); In re Bakker, Judgment No. 931 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1988)).
• 241Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 1), ¶ 2 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001); Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Ass’n, Judgment No. CSAT/7, at 3–4 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2003); Saddington, Judgment No. CSAT/11, ¶ 12 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2006); Ayeni, Judgment No. CSAT/12 (No. 2), ¶ 55 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2008); M H, Judgment No. CSAT/15, ¶ 66 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2010); Ojiambo, Judgment No. CSAT APL/41 (No. 1), ¶ 51 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2018).
• 242Faruqi, Judgment No. CSAT/5 (No. 2), at 8 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2002); Sumukan Ltd., Judgment No. CSAT/8 (No. 2), ¶ 4.43 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2005); Saddington, Judgment No. CSAT/11, ¶ 13 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2006); Oyas v. Commonwealth Secretariat, Judgment No. CSAT APL/16, ¶ 86 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2011); Ojiambo, Judgment No. CSAT APL/41 (No. 1), ¶ 51 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2018).
• 243C.F. Amerasinghe, Documents on International Administrative Tribunals 148 (1989).
• 244See Administrative Tribunal, The European Space Agency, https://perma.cc/522W-G5ZK (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 245Search carried out on February 2, 2023 on the combined jurisprudence from 1976 to 2022 (cases 1–139).
• 246G e. a. v. ESA, Decision in Cases Nos. 122–128, ¶¶ 11–13, 57, 107–122 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Oct. 15, 2021).
• 247Id. ¶¶ 108–10, 114 (citing In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987); D. (No. 3), D. (No. 4) and F. v. ITU, Judgment No. 4028 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 26, 2018); B. v. FAO, Judgment No. 4380 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 18, 2021)).
• 248Id. ¶¶ 117–22 (citing In re Berthet (No. 3), Delius, Glöckner (No. 6), Robrahn and Stegmüller (No. 2), Judgment No. 2089 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 2002); Parsons (V) and others v. Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Decision on App. Nos. 640-644/2020, 646-648/2020 et seq. (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. Apr. 20, 2021); G et al. v. NATO International Staff, Judgment No. AT-J(2021)0014 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. June 1, 2021); AA, BB, CC, DD, EE v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 94 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. June 30, 2021)). In addition, the Tribunal cited to the COEAT concerning the requirements for meeting the obligation to state reasons for a decision of a technical nature. Id. ¶ 138 (citing Parsons (V) and others, Decision on App. Nos. 640-644/2020, 646-648/2020 et seq. (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2021)).
• 249Buenadicha et al. v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 138, ¶ 49 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. June 20, 2022) (citing Parsons (V) and others, Decision on App. Nos. 640-644/2020, 646-648/2020 et seq. (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2021); G et al., Judgment No. AT-J(2021)0014 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2021); [Redacted] e. a. v. EUMETSAT, Decision in Cases Nos. 9–14 (Appeals Board of the Eur. Org. for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites Oct. 18, 2021); In re Berthet (No. 3), Delius, Glöckner (No. 6), Robrahn and Stegmüller (No. 2), Judgment No. 2089 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2002); Decision in Cases Nos. 7–11 (Appeals Board of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Mar. 15, 2022)).
• 250Duesmann, Lopez e. a. v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 136, ¶¶ 47–49 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. June 20, 2022) (citing Parsons (V) and others, Decision on App. Nos. 640-644/2020, 646-648/2020 et seq. (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2021); AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Case No. 96 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. June 30, 2021); [Redacted] e. a., Decision in Cases Nos. 9–14 (Appeals Board of the Eur. Org. for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 2021)).
• 251Buenadicha, Gabriel and Hernandez v. ESA, Decision in Cases Nos. 112, 113, 114, ¶¶ 58–65 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. June 14, 2019) (citing In re Cachelin, Judgment No. 767 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 12, 1986); In re Niesing, Peeters and Roussot, Judgment No. 963 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1989); In re Godin, Ledrut (no. 3) and Verschelden, Judgment No. 1130 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 1991); In re del Valle Franco Fernandez, Judgment No. 1610 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1997 ); In re Bousquet (No. 4) and others, Judgment No. 1979 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 12, 2000); T.B. v. UPU, Judgment No. 2439 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2005); and C.-S. v. ILO, Judgment No. 3884 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2017)).
• 252B.D. and J.A. v. ESA, Decision in Cases Nos. 88 and 89, at 7 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Jan. 22, 2013) (citing S. B. and others v. FAO, Judgment No. 2420 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2005)); XXX v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 96, at 8, 14, 16 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Jan. 18, 2016) (citing In re Bordeaux, Judgment No. 544 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Mar. 30, 1983); In re Pérez del Castillo, Judgment No. 675 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1985); In re Fernandez-Caballero, Judgment No. 946 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 8, 1988); In re Williams, Judgment No. 1128 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 1991); In re Bluske, Judgment No. 1154 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1992); In re Almazan-Aguirre, Barreda, Barrientos and Chacon, Judgment No. 1279 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 1993); In re Ahmad (No. 2), Judgment No. 1298 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 14, 1993); In re Ricart Nouel, Judgment No. 1583 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 1997)); Buenadicha, CSAC and Duesmann v. Director General, Decision in Cases Nos. 98, 99, 100, ¶ 46 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Feb. 6, 2017) (citing E. A. and others, Judgment No. 3291 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014)); G. v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 102, ¶¶ 40, 62 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. June 14, 2017) (citing In re Zaunbauer, Judgment No. 1782 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1998); A. F., Judgment No. 2377 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2005); M. C. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2669 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 6, 2008); and S. G. G. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2830 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2009)); X v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 106, ¶¶ 55, 71–72, 97 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Jan. 31, 2018) (citing In re Gieser Judgment No. 782 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1986); P. v. WHO, Judgment No. 3755 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 8, 2017); B. Y. v. WHO, Judgment No. 3870 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2017); and G. v. WHO, Judgment No. 3871 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2017)); X v. Director General, Decision in Cases Nos. 108 and 109, ¶ 98 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Oct. 24, 2017) (citing C. C., Judgment No. 2944 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014)); X v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 118, ¶ 78 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Jan 22, 2021) (citing In re Almazan-Aguirre, Barreda, Barrientos and Chacon, Judgment No. 1279 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1993)); CSAC, L and D v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 119, ¶ 48 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Oct. 15, 2021) (citing E. A. and others, Judgment No. 3291 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014)); Frota v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 129, ¶ 55 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2020) (citing H. S. v. EPO, Judgment No. 2920 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2010)); X v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 131, ¶¶ 64, 67 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. June 30, 2021) (citing In re Mitastein (No. 3), Judgment No. 1698 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1998) and H. S., Judgment No. 2920 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2010)); X v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 137, ¶ 46 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. June 20, 2022) (citing H. S., Judgment No. 2920 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2010)); X and Y v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 132, ¶¶ 28, 34, 83 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. July 26, 2021) (citing In re Lindsey (No. 2), Judgment No. 209 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 14, 1973); In re ASP, Judgment No. 357 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1978); In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987); In re Cuvillier (No. 3), Judgment No. 990 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 23, 1990); and D. (No. 3), D. (No. 4) and F., Judgment No. 4028 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2010)).
• 253See Frota, Decision in Case No. 129, ¶ 45 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2020); X, Decision in Case No. 131, ¶ 44 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2021); X, Decision in Case No. 137, ¶ 27 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2022) (all citing [Redacted] v. EUMETSAT, Decision in Case No. 7 (Appeals Board of the Eur. Org. for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites Jan. 14, 2020)).
• 254C v. ESA, K v. ESA, G v. ESA, Decision in Cases Nos. 67, 68, 69, at 6 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Oct. 9, 1998) (citing P. B. and G. B. v. Secretary-General, Judgment in Cases No. 24 and No. 25, at 4 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. June 25, 1997), concerning acquired rights).
• 255XXX, Decision in Case No. 96, at 13 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2016) (citing K. S., Judgment No. 44 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2005)).
• 256C. v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 70, at 5 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Oct. 9, 1998) (citing Abadian v. IBRD, Decision No. 141 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 19, 1995), with respect to calculation of time-limits).
• 257X e. a. v. ESA, Decision in Case No. 101, ¶ 91 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. Mar. 15, 2018) (citing and distinguishing Quijano-Evans & Dedeyne-Amman, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/098 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017) in a discussion of acquired rights).
• 258See Administrative Tribunal of the BIS (ATBIS), BIS, https://perma.cc/RYA9-J76G (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 259See Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal of the BIS, BIS, https://perma.cc/XF9D-NQE2 (accessed Sept. 14, 2023).
• 260Search carried out on September 8, 2021 on combined jurisprudence from 1996 to 2020.
• 261X. v. Bank for Int’l Settlements, Judgment No. 1/2018, ¶¶ 59, 62 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements Apr. 11, 2019) (citing In re Leonor, Judgment No. 1075 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan 29, 1991); V. K. v. OPCW, Judgment No. 3680 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2016); and M. v. Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Judgment No. 3750, consideration 5 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 30, 2016); Mr. Y v. IFC, Decision No. 25 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 31, 1985); Kirk v. IBRD, Decision No. 29 (World Bank Admin. Trib. June 11, 1986); and Gamble v. IBRD, Decision No. 35 (World Bank Admin. Trib. May 21, 1987)).
• 262Id. ¶ 70 (citing L.F.R., Judgment No. 2435 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2005)).
• 263Id. ¶ 91 (citing N. O., Judgment No. 2587 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2007)).
• 264Id. ¶ 125 (citing In re Price (No. 2), Judgment No. 1168, consideration 3 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 15, 1992)).
• 265Id. ¶ 140 (citing K. (No. 2) v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 3837, consideration 10 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2017)).
• 266Id. ¶ 162 (citing D. v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 3660, consideration 7 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2016); P.D.M. v. EPO, Judgment No. 3337, consideration 11 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2014); R. M. v. ILO, Judgment No. 3065, consideration 10 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 8, 2012)).
• 267Id. ¶ 191 (citing In re Callewaert-Haezebrouck (No. 2), Judgment No. 344 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 8, 1978)).
• 268Id. ¶ 130 (citing Gehr v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/166, ¶ 32 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Dec. 11, 2013); Morsy v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-298, ¶ 23 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 28, 2013); K. (No. 2), Judgment No. 3837, consideration 10 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2017)).
• 269Id. ¶ 163 (citing Antaki v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-095, ¶ 20 (U.N. App. Trib. Oct. 29, 2010); Obdeijin v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201, ¶ 42 (U.N. App. Trib. Mar. 16, 2012); E. v. FAO, Judgment No. 3593, consideration 14 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2016); Curto v. European Parliament, Case T-275/17, ¶ 115 (Court of Justice of the European Union, General Court July 13, 2018); SQ v. European Investment Bank, Case T-377/17, ¶ 162 (Court of Justice of the European Union, General Court July 13, 2018)).
• 270Id. ¶ 60 (citing Simmons v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/050, ¶ 9 (U.N. Disp. Trib. Mar. 13, 1013)); id. ¶ 123 (citing Gehr, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/166, ¶ 35 (U.N. Disp. Trib. 2013); Morsy, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-298, ¶ 23 (U.N. App. Trib. 2013)).
• 271Id. ¶ 147 (citing Gehr, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/166, ¶ 34 (U.N. Disp. Trib. 2013); Morsy, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-298, ¶ 23 (U.N. App. Trib. 2013)).
• 272Id. ¶ 155 (citing Gehr, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/166, ¶ 34 (U.N. Disp. Trib. 2013); Antaki, Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-095, ¶ 20 (U.N. App. Trib. 2010); Obdeijin, Judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201, ¶ 42 (U.N. App. Trib. 2012)).
• 273Id. ¶ 67 (citing Gamble, Decision No. 35 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1987)).
• 274X. v. Bank for Int’l Settlements, Judgment No. 1/1999, at 11 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements Oct. 23, 2001) (citing In re Jurado (No. 3 – Grant of Sick Leave), Judgment No. 85 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 10, 1965); In re Berte (No. 2), Judgment No. 764, consideration 4 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 12, 1986)).
• 275Id. at 17 (citing In re Ali Khan (No. 3), Judgment No. 614, consideration 7 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 5, 1984); In re Sikka (No. 3), Judgment No. 622 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1984); In re Vollering, Judgment No. 1194 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1992); In re Kigaraba (No. 3), Judgment No. 1366 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 13, 1994); In re Raoof, Judgment No. 1536 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 11, 1996)).
• 276X. v. Bank for Int’l Settlements, Judgment No. 1/2005, at 4 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements Sept. 15, 2006) (citing W.G. v. ITU, Judgment No. 2510 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 2006)).
• 277Id. (citing A.F. v. IAEA, Judgment No. 2522 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 2006)).
• 278X. v. Bank for Int’l Settlements, Judgment No. 1/2011, at 9 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements Aug. 22, 2012) (citing L. S. v. EPO, Judgment No. 2977, consideration 4 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 2, 2011); C. G., Judgment No. 2599, consideration 5 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2007)).
• 279X., Judgment No. 1/2005, at 6 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements 2006) (citing In re Glynn, Judgment No. 182 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 8, 1971)).
• 280X. v. Bank for Int’l Settlements, Judgment No. 1/2006, at 11 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements Dec. 13, 2007) (citing In re Settino, Judgment No. 426 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1980); In re Ayoub (No. 2), von Knorring, Perret-Nguyen (No. 2) and Santarelli, Judgment No. 986 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 23, 1989); In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib 1987); In re Georgiadis, Kazinetz, McCallum and Polycarpou, Judgment No. 1226 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1994); de Merode et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)).
• 281Id. at 13 (citing In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib 1987); de Merode et al. et al., Decision No. 1 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981)).
• 282Schermers & Blokker, supra note 2, at 464 (citing League of Nations, Official J., Special Suppl. No. 54, at 201 and 478).
• 283The Tribunal, ILO, https://perma.cc/FC2L-RZCW (last visited Sept. 22, 2023).
• 284Id. At the time of the dissolution of the League, the administrative tribunal had dealt with thirty-seven cases.
• 285Id.
• 286Organizations recognizing the jurisdiction, ILO, https://perma.cc/ZE9G-6L2Q (last visited Sept. 22, 2023).
• 287A.-M. B. v. ITU, Judgment No. 3138, ¶ 7 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 27, 2012).
• 288S. v. Eurocontrol, Judgment No. 3497, ¶ 13 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 29, 2015).
• 289IFAD v. A. T. S. G., Judgment No. 3003, ¶ 33 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 11, 2011).
• 290See Administrative Tribunal (TRIBAD), Org. of American States, https://perma.cc/4C68-W38J (last visited Sept. 22, 2023).
• 291See List of Decisions, Org. of American States, https://perma.cc/73WD-F7QY (last visited Sept. 14, 2023).
• 292Mario Gómez Pulido v. Secretary General of the Org. of American States, Judgment No. 93, ¶¶ 23, 32 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. June 13, 1986).
• 293Marilyn Brunetti et al. v. Secretary General of the Org. of American States, Judgment No. 95, ¶¶ 76, 79 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. Oct. 31, 1986).
• 294Martha Romero and Teresa Folgate v. Secretary General of the Org. of American States, Judgment No. 140, at 13–14, 18–19 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. Dec. 3, 1999).
• 295Alberto Vesprémy Bangha v. Secretary General and Retirement and Pension Committee of the General Secretariat of the Org. of American States, Judgment No. 12, ¶ 4 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. June 6, 1975).
• 296Frank Hebblethwaite, Thomas J. Stone, Carmen Castro, Teresa Findlay, Diana Martínez, and Marvin Broadbent v. Secretary General of the Org. of American States, Judgment No. 30, ¶ 2 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. June 1, 1977).
• 297Id. (citing In re Lindsey, Judgment No. 61 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1962)).
• 298José Luis Pando v. Director General of the Inter-American Institute for Coop. on Agriculture, Judgment No. 117, ¶¶ 11–12 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. Nov. 13, 1992).
• 299Paola Cárdenas v. Secretary-General of the Org. of American States, Judgment No. 166, ¶ 51–52 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. June 20, 2019).
• 300In 1991, the Inter-American Investment Corporation and its staff members also became subject to its jurisdiction. See Administrative Tribunal, IDB, https://perma.cc/2ZMH-3NR8 (last visited Sept. 22, 2023).
• 301See Decisions, IDB, https://perma.cc/3VYU-W4J8 (last visited Sept. 22, 2023).
• 302Peroustianis v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 42, at 4 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 19, 1996) (citing In re Fernandez-Caballero, Judgment No. 946 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1988)).
• 303Agusti, Vena, Verdejo-Sancho et al. v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 80, at 14–15 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Aug. 31, 2015) (citing In re Bustos, Judgment No. 701 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1985); Prescott v. IBRD, Decision No. 253 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 4, 2001); Amora, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997)); Altafin et al. v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 88 (Costs), at ¶ 8 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib., Oct. 21, 2016) (citing P. (No. 7) v. WHO, Judgment No. 3758 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 18, 2016); Caryk, Decision No. 214 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1999)).
• 304These include the role of managerial discretion when considering the legality of an administrative decision (see, e.g., Buria-Hellbeck v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 23, at 5 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib., Nov. 18, 1989); Cressa et al., Ares et al., Canterbury et al., v. IDB, Judgment in Cases Nos. 86, 87, and 89, ¶ 35 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Feb. 24, 2017)), limitations on IATs’ jurisdiction ratione materiae (see, e.g., Mostajo de Calle et al. v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 57, at 14 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov. 4, 2005)), the obligation of the administration to attempt to find an alternative position for a staff member whose employment was declared redundant (see, e.g., Ponciano v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 72, at 20 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 15, 2011)), the power of international organizations to amend rules concerning staff members’ rights and duties (see, e.g., Cressa et al., Ares et al., Canterbury et al., Judgment in Cases Nos. 86, 87, and 89, ¶ 40 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2017)), the scope of review in disciplinary cases (see, e.g., Fernández v. IDB, Judgment No. 74(c), at 21 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. July 29, 2011)), the principle of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings (Andrade v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 91, at 19 (see, e.g., Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Apr. 1, 2016)) and the requirements of due process (see, e.g., BD v. IDB, Judgment in Case No. 100, ¶ 43 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Mar. 21 2022)).
• 305See Jaber v. Commissioner General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2012/001, ¶¶ 46, 62 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Feb. 1, 2012) (citing In re Wassef (No. 8), Judgment No. 1486 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 1996)); Harrich v. Commissioner General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2012/018, ¶ 20 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Mar. 22, 2012) (citing In re Horsman, Koper McNeill and Petitfils, Judgment No. 1203 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1992)); Abu Nada v. Commissioner General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2013/038, ¶ 82 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Dec. 30, 2013) (citing S. G. G. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2698 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 6, 2008) and S. G. G. v. WIPO, Judgment No. 2829 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2009)); Al Othman v. Commissioner General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/073, ¶ 72 n.5 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Dec. 29, 2020) (citing In re Meyers, Judgment No. 1669 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 10, 1997) and M. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 4365 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 7, 2020)); Ibrahim v. Commissioner General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2021/043, ¶ 22 n.1 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Sept. 22, 2021) (citing In re Ali Khan (No. 3), Judgment No. 614 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1984); and In re West (No. 5), Judgment No. 845 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 10, 1987)); Arrabieh v. Commissioner-General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2021/063, ¶ 36 n.8-9 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Nov. 25, 2021) (citing In re Ali Khan (No. 3), Judgment No. 614 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1984); and In re West (No. 5), Judgment No. 845 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987)); Abu Shmais v. Commissioner General of the UNRWA, Judgment No. UNRWA/2022/004, ¶ 24 (U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees Disp. Trib. Feb. 14, 2022) (citing R. M.-V. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 2807 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 4, 2009)).
• 306Decision on Application No. 08/51, ¶ 25 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools May 25, 2009) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 08/51bis, ¶¶ 15–19 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Dec. 12, 2011) (discussing relationship with E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 10/75, ¶¶ 19–22 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools June 21, 2011) (discussing relationship with E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 10/85, ¶ 19 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools July 29, 2011) (citing E.C.J. and Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 12/40, ¶¶ 20, 21, 25, 30 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Dec. 21, 2012) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application Nos. 12/72 and 12/73, ¶ 7 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Feb. 20, 2013) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 13/27, ¶ 9 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools July 29, 2013) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 13/45, ¶¶ 16, 18, 25–26 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Feb. 10, 2014) (citing E.C.J. and Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 13/58, ¶ 8 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Feb. 28, 2014) (citing Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 14/28, ¶ 38 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Feb. 5, 2015) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 14/48, ¶¶ 8, 16, 21 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools July 1, 2015) (citing E.C.J. and Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 16/58, ¶¶ 16–18 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Jan. 25, 2017) (citing E.C.J. and Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 17/03, ¶ 12 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools July 17, 2017) (citing Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 18/04 ¶¶ 12–21 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Sept. 27, 2018) (citing and following E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 18/26, ¶¶ 27–28, 39–41 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Sept. 19, 2019) (citing E.C.J. and Eur. Civ. Service Trib.); Decision on Application No. 20/59, ¶ 18 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Dec. 4, 2020) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 21/01, ¶ 5 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Apr. 22, 2021) (citing E.C.J.); Decision on Application No. 22/03, ¶¶ 14, 19, 22 (Complaints Bd. of the Eur. Schools Dec. 1, 2022) (citing E.C.J.).
• 307Jaramillo v. EIB, Case T‑482/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:901, ¶ 113 (E.C.J. Gen. Ct (Second Chamber) Dec. 13, 2017).
• 308Whitehead v. ECB, Case No. F‑98/09, ECLI:EU:F:2011:156, ¶ 76 (Eur. Union Civ. Serv. Trib. Sept. 27, 2011).
• 309Judgment No. 24, ¶ 3.1 (First Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie, Mar. 17, 2021) (citing G. I. v. OPCW, Judgment No. 2586 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 7, 2007)); Judgment No. 25, ¶ 76 (First Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie June 24, 2021) (citing In re Ali Khan (No. 2), Judgment No. 557 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Mar. 30, 1983)) and ¶ 83 (citing In re Rhyner-Cuerel, Judgment No. 317 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 21, 1977)); Judgment No. 29, ¶ 11.2 (First Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Sept. 2, 2022) (citing B. D. v. WHO, Judgment No. 2933 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 8, 2010) and R. A.B. v. ILO, Judgement No. 3372 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 9, 2014)); ¶ 11.6 (citing H. v. OPCW, Judgment No. 3992 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 26, 2018)); ¶ 11.8 (citing M. v. FAO, Judgment No. 3594 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2016)); Judgment No. 31, ¶ 11.5 (First Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Sept. 2, 2022) (citing D. v. ILO, Judgment No. 3704 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2016) and A. v. WHO, Judgement No. 3869 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 28, 2017)); Judgment No. 34, ¶ 11.2 (First Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Sept. 2, 2022) (citing B. D., Judgment No. 2933 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2010) and R. A.B., Judgement No. 3372 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014)); ¶ 11.6 (citing H., Judgment No. 3992 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2018)); ¶ 11.8 (citing M., Judgment No. 3594 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2016)).
• 310Judgment No. 31, ¶ 11.5 (First Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2022) (citing XXX, Judgment No. 75 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2014)).
• 311Out of the 15 judgments it has rendered, the Tribunal d’Appel has cited the ILOAT in eight of them: Judgment No. 2, ¶ 12 (App. Instance Trib. Of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Sept. 18, 2013) (citing In re Raina, Judgment No. 31 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Mar. 28, 1958); In re Lamming, Judgment No. 40 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Sept. 13, 1960); In re Ellen Kahal, Judgment No. 44 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1960); In re Deschamps, Judgment No. 91 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 11, 1966)); Judgment No. 4, ¶¶ 21–22, 39 (App. Instance Trib. Of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Mar. 22, 2016) (citing In re Bidoli, Judgment No. 166 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 17, 1970); In re Perrone, Judgment No. 470 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 28, 1982); In re Amira, Judgment No. 1317 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1994)); Judgment No. 5, ¶¶ 32, 37 (App. Instance Trib. Of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Oct. 6, 2017) (citing In re Carrillo, Judgment, No. 272 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Apr. 12, 1976); P. v. EPO, Judgement No. 3619 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 3, 2016)); Judgment No. 6, ¶ 33 (App. Instance Trib. Of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Oct. 6, 2017) (citing In re Brache, Judgment No. 137 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 3, 1969); In re Aevoet and others, Judgment No. 902 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 30, 1988)); Judgment No. 7, ¶¶ 19–20 (App. Instance Trib. Of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Apr. 27, 2018) (citing In re Breuckmann (No. 2), Judgment No. 322 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Nov. 21, 1977); In re Ayoub, Lucal, Monat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987); In re Da, Judgment No. 873 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Dec. 10, 1987); In re Vukmanovic, Judgment No. 896 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 30, 1988); In re El Boustani (No.3), Judgment No. 958 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 27, 1989); In re Barahona and Royo Gracia (No. 2), Judgment No. 1025 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. June 26, 1990); In re Niesing (No. 2), Peeters (No. 2) and Roussot (No. 2), Judgment No. 1118 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1991); In re Lehmann-Schurter, Judgment No. 1125 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 1991); In re S.-Z. (Nos. 2 and 3), Judgment No. 1425 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 1995); In re Kock, N’diaye and Silberreiss, Judgment No. 1450 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 1995); and In re Deville and others and In re Gasser, Judgment No. 2097 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 2002)); Judgment No. 8, ¶¶ 26–27 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Oct. 17, 2019) (citing In re Annabi (No. 2), Judgment No. 2067 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 12, 2001); In re Guastavi (No. 2), Judgment No. 2100 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 30, 2002); G.C. v. FAO, Judgment No. 2521 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 2006); V. S.-M. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 3233 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 4, 2013); H. L., Judgment No. 3347 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2014); P. B. v. IOM, Judgment No. 3416 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 11, 2015); and J. v. WHO, Judgment No. 4305 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 24, 2020)); Judgment No. 9, ¶¶ 3–4 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Jan. 17, 2020) (citing In re Unninayar (No. 2), Judgment No. 1064 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Jan. 29, 1991); In re Der Hovsepian (No. 2), Judgment No. 1306 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1994); H. B. v. WCO, Judgment No. 2483 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Feb. 1, 2006); and S. (M.) (No.3) v. EPO, Judgment No. 4187 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 3, 2019)); Judgment No. 14, ¶ 19 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie Nov. 10, 2021) (citing D. v. EPO, Judgment No. 3005 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 6, 2011); C. M. v ILO, Judgment No. 4363 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. Oct. 29, 2020)).
• 312Judgment No. 6, ¶ 37 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2017) (citing I v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 69 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Mar. 24, 2011)); Judgment No. 8, ¶ 26 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2019) (citing AA v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 81 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Mar. 17, 2016)); Judgment No. 14, ¶ 14 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2021) (citing F. v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 64 (Org. for Economic Coop. and Dev. Admin. Trib. Feb. 24, 2009)).
• 313Judgment No. 8, ¶ 26 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2019) (citing AL v. IBRD, Decision No. 409 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Dec. 9, 2009)); Judgment No. 9, ¶ 4 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2020) (citing Auda v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/022 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 31, 2017)); Judgment No. 2, ¶¶ 12, 27 (App. Instance Trib. of the Int’l Org. of La Francophonie 2013) (citing Sforza-Chrzanowski v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 357 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 6, 1985); Claxton v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 560 (U.N. Admin. Trib. June 30, 1992); Tarjouman v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 579 (U.N. Admin. Trib. Nov. 18, 1992); D-Cruz v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgement No. 1124 (U.N. Admin. Trib. July 25, 2003)).
• 314Rowe v. CARICOM Secretariat, Decision No. 1, ¶ 42 (Caribbean Comm. Admin. Trib. Jan. 11, 2023).
• 315Id. ¶ 44.
• 316Id. ¶¶ 47–51, 62, 66–69, 81.
• 317Judgments 1–4, Tribunal Administrativo-Laboral del Mercosur, https://perma.cc/D3MH-3SJK (last visited Feb. 23, 2023).
• 318Judgments 1–19, EUMETSAT Appeals Board, https://perma.cc/2ABW-D9LU (last visited Feb. 23, 2023). It also should be noted that certain other tribunals do not make their jurisprudence publicly available. This is the case for the European Stability Mechanism Administrative Tribunal, the African Union Administrative Tribunal, and the GAVI (Vaccine Alliance) Administrative Tribunal.
• 319See de Merode et al., Decision No. 1, ¶¶ 26–28 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981).
• 320Id. ¶ 28.
• 321Mesch & Siy (No. 4), Decision No. 35, ¶¶ 14, 18, 21, 26, 41, 45 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997); Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097, ¶ 124, 129, 131–36 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Quijano-Evans and Dedeyne-Amann, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/098, ¶¶ 99, 104–14 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Mirella et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2017/099, ¶¶ 107, 112–22 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/106, ¶ 114 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Cardenas Fischer et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/107, ¶ 114 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Steinbach, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/114, ¶ 108 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Bozic, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/115, ¶ 108 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andres et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/117 ¶ 108 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Angelova et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/118, ¶ 108 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andreeva et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/122, ¶ 108 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Bozic et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/129, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Angelova et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/130, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib 2020); Andres et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/131, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andreeva et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/132, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/133, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Doedens et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/148, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Correia Reis et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/149, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Aug. 19, 2020); Bettighofer et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/150, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Avognon et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/151, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Alsaqqaf et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/152, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Aligula et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/153, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Aksioutine et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/154, ¶ 93 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Alcañiz et al., Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-840, ¶ 26 (U.N. App. Trib. 2018); Quijano-Evans et al., Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-841, ¶ 23 (U.N. App. Trib. 2018); Mirella et al., Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-842, ¶ 23 (U.N. App. Trib. 2018); Applicant, Judgment No. 1/2006, at 10–11 (Bank Int’l Settlements Admin. Trib. 2007); Bate Arrah v. Afr. Dev. Bank, Judgment No. 64, ¶ 25 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. Nov, 25, 2008); Saddington, Judgment No. CSAT/11, ¶ 35 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2006); Cressa et al., Ares et al. and Canterbury et al., Judgment in Cases Nos. 86, 87 and 89, ¶¶ 40–41 (Inter-Am. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2017); Daseking-Frank et al., Judgment No. 2007-1, ¶¶ 54–60 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2007).
• 322Brunetti et al., Judgment No. 95, ¶ 76, (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. 1986); Romero and Folgate, Judgment No. 140, at 12–13 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. 1999); Omer v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/188, ¶ 21 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Nov. 4, 2011); Garcia v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/189, ¶ 26 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Nov. 4, 2011); Chattopadhyay v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/198, ¶ 41 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Nov. 21, 2011); Candusso v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2013/090, ¶ 31 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. June 26, 2013); Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097, ¶¶ 124, 129, 131–36 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Quijano-Evans and Dedyne-Amann, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/098, ¶¶ 99, 104–14 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Mirella et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2017/099, ¶¶ 107, 112–22 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Nicholas v. U.N. Secretary-General, UNDT No. UNDT/2020/039, ¶¶ 48–49 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Mar. 10, 2020); Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/106, ¶ 116 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Cardenas Fischer et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/107, ¶ 116 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Steinbach, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/114, ¶ 110 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Bozic, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/115, ¶ 110 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andres et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/117, ¶ 110 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Angelova et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/118, ¶ 110 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andreeva et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/122, ¶ 110 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Bozic et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/129, ¶ 97 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Angelova et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/130, ¶ 97 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andres et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/131, ¶ 97 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Andreeva et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/132, ¶ 97 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/133, ¶ 97 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Doedens et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/148, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Correia Reis et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/149, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Bettighofer et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/150, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Avognon et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/151, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Alsaqqaf et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/152, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Aligula et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/153, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Aksioutine et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/154, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020); Ayeni, Judgment No. CSAT/12 (No. 2), ¶ 55 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2008).
• 323Diop v. U.N. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2012/029, ¶ 28 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. Feb. 22, 2012); M H, Judgment No. CSAT/15, ¶ 66 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2010); Ojiambo, Judgment No. CSAT APL/41 (No. 1), ¶ 51 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2018); Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2002-1, ¶ 31 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); Ms. “Y” (No. 2), Judgment No. 2002-2, ¶ 47 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); Daseking-Frank et al., Judgment No. 2007-1, ¶ 90 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2007); Ms. D. Pyne, Judgment No. 2011-2, ¶¶ 114, 136 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2011); Mr. E. Weisman v. IMF, Judgment No. 2014-2, ¶ 47 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Feb. 26, 2014); Ms. “GG” (No. 2), Judgment No. 2015-3, ¶¶ 362–63, 398 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2015); Mr. E. Verreydt v. IMF, Judgment No. 2016-5, ¶ 80 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Nov. 4, 2016).
• 324Suzuki, Decision No. 82, ¶ 38 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2008); Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2002-1, ¶ 59 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); Ms. “G” and Mr. “H” v. IMF, Judgment No. 2002-3, ¶ 77 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Dec. 18, 2002); Ms. “GG” (No. 2), Judgment No. 2015-3, ¶ 380 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2015).
• 325Viswanathan, Decision No. 12, ¶ 13 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1996); Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2002-1, ¶¶ 31, 36 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); Ms. “GG” (No. 2), Judgment No. 2015-3, ¶ 393 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2015).
• 326Ms. “B” v. IMF, Judgment No. 1997-2, ¶ 37 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Dec. 23, 1997); Daseking-Frank et al, Judgment No. 2007-1, ¶ 64, 69 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2007); Ms. N. Sachdev, Judgment No. 2012-1, ¶ 80 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2012); Ms. D. Hanna v. IMF, Judgment No. 2015-1, ¶ 50 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Mar. 11, 2015).
• 327Obdeijn, Judgment No. UNDT/2011/032, ¶ 31 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2011); Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 1), ¶ 2 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001); Saddington, Judgment No. CSAT/11, ¶ 12 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2006).
• 328Zaidi, Decision No. 17, ¶ 61 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1996); Chaudhry, Decision No. 23, ¶ 35 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1996).
• 329Mr. “E”, Decision No. 103, ¶ 54 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2014); C., Judgment in Case No. 01/03 (Liability and Remedy), ¶ 55 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2003).
• 330Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Ass’n, Judgment No. CSAT/7, at 3–4 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2003); Ms. “B”, Judgment No. 1997-2, ¶ 37 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1997).
• 331Ms. D (No. 3), Decision No. 111, ¶ 56 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2018); Mr. B. Tosko Bello v. IMF, Judgment No. 2013-2, ¶ 65 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Mar. 13, 2013).
• 332Ms. “GG” (No. 2), Judgment No. 2015-3 ¶ 441 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2015); Mr. E. Verreydt, Judgment No. 2016-5, ¶ 106 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2016).
• 333K. K. D. F., Order No. 114, ¶¶ 1–2 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2019).
• 334Mohsin, Judgment No. CSAT/3 (No. 1), ¶ 2 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2001).
• 335For a complete discussion of this aspect of the de Merode case, see C.F. Amerasinghe, The Implications of the de Merode Case for International Administrative Law, 43 Heidelberg J. Int’l L. 16 (1983).
• 336Daseking-Frank et al., Judgment No. 2007-1, ¶ 57 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2007).
• 337A.G. S., Judgment No. 3106 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2012).
• 338In re Ayoub, Lucal, Montat, Perret-Nguyen and Samson, Judgment No. 832 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1987).
• 339Perrin (No. 3), Decision No. 113 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2018).
• 340See, e.g., Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017).
• 341See, e.g., Alcañiz et al., Judgment No. 2018-UNAT-840 (U.N. App. Trib. 2018).
• 342G e. a. v. ESA, Decision in Cases Nos. 122–28, ¶ 114 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2021); X and Y, Decision in Case No. 132, ¶ 83 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2021); Buenadicha et al., Decision in Case No. 138, ¶ 45 (Eur. Space Agency Admin. Trib. 2022).
• 343See, e.g., Alsaqqaf et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/152, ¶ 95 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020).
• 344X., Judgment No. 1/2006 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements 2007).
• 345In re Lindsey, Judgment No. 61, ¶ 12 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1962).
• 346See, e.g., Hebblethwaite, Stone, Castro, Findlay, Martínez, and Broadbent, Judgment No. 30, ¶ 2 (Org. of American States Admin. Trib. 1977); Mesch & Siy (No. 4), Decision No. 35, ¶ 17 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997).
• 347See, e.g., Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/106, ¶ 114 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020).
• 348In re Sherif, Judgment No. 29, at 2 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1957).
• 349Id. at 3.
• 350See, e.g., Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Abd Al-Shakour et al., Judgment No. UNDT/2020/106, ¶ 114 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2020).
• 351B. and others et al., Judgment No. 4134 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2019).
• 352In re Ballo, Judgment No. 191 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1972).
• 353In re Khelifati, Judgment No. 207 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1973).
• 354M.-J. C. and others, Judgment No. 3238 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2013); I. T., Judgment No. 3437 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2015).
• 355In re Zaunbauer, Judgment No. 1782 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1998).
• 356Amora, Decision No. 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997).
• 357In re de Los Cobos and Wenger, Judgment No. 391 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1980).
• 358See, e.g., Lloret Alcañiz, Zhao, Xie, Kutner, and Kring, Judgment No. UNDT/2017/097, ¶ 124 (U.N. Dispt. Trib. 2017); Mesch & Siy (No. 4), Decision No. 35, ¶ 21 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997); Commonwealth Secretariat Staff Ass’n, Judgment No. CSAT/7 (2003), at 3 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2003).
• 359Baron, Decision on Apps. Nos. 492-497/2011, Nos. 504-508/2011, No. 510/2011, No. 512/2011, Nos. 515-520/2011 and No. 527/2012, ¶ 49 (Council of Eur. Admin. Trib. 2012).
• 360Salle, Decision No. 10, ¶ 61 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1982).
• 361JF, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0001, ¶ 49 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2013); C. A. W., Judgment No. 50, ¶ 58 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2006); S. M., Judgment No. 103, ¶ 70 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2018); Hans, Judgment No. CSAT/1, at 3 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 1998); Ms. “T”, Judgment No. 2006-2, ¶¶ 36, 42 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2006).
• 362In re Bustos, Judgment No. 701, ¶¶ 8–10 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1985).
• 363Amora, Decision No. 24, ¶ 24 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1997); Agusti, Vena, Verdejo-Sancho et al., Judgment No. 80, at 14 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2015); Appellant, Judgment in Case No. 2019/AT/02, ¶ 42 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2020); Mr. “A”, Judgment No. 1999-1, ¶ 77 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1999).
• 364In re Ayoub (No. 2), Von Knorring, Perret-Nguyen (No. 2), and Santarelli, Judgment No. 986, ¶¶ 3, 6 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1989).
• 365Kalyanaraman, Decision No. 98, ¶ 28 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2012); Muthuswami et al., Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-034, ¶ 30 (U.N. App. Trib. 2010).
• 366X., Judgment No. 1/2006, at 11 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements 2007).
• 367Baker et al. v. IMF, Judgment No. 2005-3, ¶ 20 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. Dec. 6, 2005).
• 368In re Vollering, Judgment No. 1194 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1992).
• 369Murray, Decision No. 91, ¶ 47 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2009); Mr. “R”, Judgment No. 2002-1, ¶ 39 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); X., Judgment No. 1/1999, at 17 (Admin. Trib. of the Bank for Int’l Settlements 2001); C., Judgment in Case No. 01/03 (Liability and Remedy), ¶ 55 (Eur. Bank for Reconstr. and Dev. Admin. Trib. 2003).
• 370Suntharalingam, Decision No. 6, ¶¶ 34–38 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981).
• 371JF, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0001, ¶ 35 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2013); Buria-Hellbeck, Judgment No. 23, at 5 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1989); Yan, Decision No. 3, ¶ 29 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1994).
• 372C. A. W., Judgment No. 50, ¶ 70 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2006).
• 373Buranavanichkit, Decision No. 7 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1982).
• 374Lindsey, Decision No. 1, ¶ 7 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992).
• 375Id. ¶ 43.
• 376Yamagishi, Decision No. 65, ¶ 44 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2004); JF, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0001, ¶ 48 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2013).
• 377Ms. “C”, Judgment No. 1997-1, ¶ 36 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1997).
• 378Buria-Hellbeck, Judgment No. 23, at 5 (Inter-American Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1989).
• 379Pinto, Decision No. 56 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1988).
• 380Yan, Decision No. 3 (1994), ¶ 29 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1994).
• 381T. K., Judgment No. 12, ¶ 17 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2001); B. K., Judgment No. 13, ¶ 31 (Afr. Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 2001); D’Aoust, Judgment No. 1996-1, ¶ 23 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 1996).
• 382Bandara, Judgment No. CSAT APL/22 (No. 1), ¶ 85 (Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Trib. 2014).
• 383de Raet, Decision No. 85 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1989).
• 384JF, Judgment No. AT-J(2013)0001, ¶ 36 (N. Atl. Treaty Org. Admin. Trib. 2013); Ms. “Y”, Judgment No. 2002-2, ¶ 64 (Int’l Monetary Fund Admin. Trib. 2002); Rowe, Decision No. 1, ¶¶ 49–50 (Caribbean Comm. Admin. Trib. 2023).
• 385Yan, Decision No. 3, ¶ 20 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1994).
• 386In re Chadsey, Judgment No. 122 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1968) (cited by UNDT, COEAT, EBRDAT); In re Varnet, Judgment No. 179 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1971) (cited by UNDT, UNAT, AfDBAT); In re Gracia de Muñiz, Judgment No. 269 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1976) (cited by UNDT, AfDBAT, IMFAT); In re Settino, Judgment No. 426 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1980) (cited by ADBAT, OASAT, BISAT); In re Villegas (No. 4), Judgment No. 442 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. May 14, 1981) (cited by ABDAT, OECDAT, CSAT); In re Sikka (No. 3), Judgment No. 622 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1984) (cited by ADBAT, NATOAT, BISAT); In re Fernandez-Caballero, Judgment No. 946 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1988) (cited by COEAT, IDBAT, ESAAT); In re Niesing (No. 2), Judgment No. 1118 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1991) (cited by ADBAT, CSAT, EBRDAT); In re Aelvoet (No. 6) and others, Judgment No. 1712 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 1998) (cited by ADBAT, NATOAT, IMFAT); In re Walstijn, Judgment No. 1984 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2000) (cited by UNDT, OECDAT, NATOAT); In re Matthews, Judgment No. 2004 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2001) (cited by WBAT, CSAT, IMFAT); R. A.-O. v. UNESCO, Judgment No. 2229 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. July 16, 2003) (cited by ADBAT, UNDT, UNAT); F. L., Judgment No. 2967 (Int’l Lab. Org. Admin. Trib. 2011) (cited by UNDT, UNAT, CSAT).
• 387Saberi, Decision No. 5 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981) (cited by ADBAT, AfDBAT, IDBAT); Mr. Y, Decision No. 25 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1985) (cited by BISAT, AfDBAT, IMFAT); Gyamfi v. IBRD, Decision No. 28 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Apr. 22, 1986) (cited by ADBAT, OASAT, IMFAT); Kirk, Decision No. 29 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1986) (cited by ADBAT, BISAT, IMFAT); Agodo v. IBRD, IFC and IDA, Decision No. 41 (World Bank Admin. Trib. Oct. 27, 1987) (cited by ADBAT, NATOAT, IDBAT); de Raet, Decision No. 85 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1989) (cited by ADBAT, NATOAT, IMFAT); Briscoe, Decision No. 118 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1992) (cited by ADBAT, NATOAT, IDBAT).
• 388Teixeira, Judgement No. 233 (U.N. Admin. Trib. 1978) (cited by ADBAT, EBRDAT, IMFAT).
• 389De Armas et al., Decision No. 39 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1998) (cited by CSAT, EBRDAT, IMFAT).
• 390M.B. Akehurst, The Law Governing Employment in International Organizations 263 (1967).
• 391As de Cooker has stated recently, “[c]onvergence is the natural trend.” de Cooker, supra note 3, at 246.
• 392de Merode et al., Decision No. 1, ¶ 28 (World Bank Admin. Trib. 1981) (quoted and discussed in supra note 11 and accompanying text).
• 393Lindsey, Decision No. 1, ¶ 4 (Asian Dev. Bank Admin. Trib. 1992) (quoted and discussed supra note 113 and accompanying text).
• 394See de Cooker, supra note 3, at 239–41.
• 395See Application for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1973, at 214 (Declaration of Judge Lachs, calling for an “improved procedure” to ensure that “the procedures in question . . . be uniform”); Manfred Lachs, The Judiciary and the International Civil Service: Some Suggestions, in Liber Amicorum Honouring Ignaz Seidle-Hovenveldern (1988), at 311–13; de Cooker, supra note 3, at 243–44. Most recently, see Initial review of the jurisdictional set-up of the United Nations common system: Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, document A/75/690, ¶¶ 44–59, 110–14 (Jan. 15, 2021); Review of the jurisdictional set-up of the United Nations common system: Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, document A/77/222, ¶¶ 67–105 (Aug. 5, 2022).