ILOAT Statute (223,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: ILOAT Statute
Total judgments found: 191
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 2975
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment / Non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment as a result of restructuring.
"The case law allows that where the Administration has failed to take a decision 'within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', as provided for by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and the staff member has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time and a decision is not received, he or she may proceed directly before the Tribunal without waiting for a final decision (see Judgment 2631, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2948
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal '[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a 'decision upon [the] claim' within the meaning of these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2939
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the internal means of redress have been exhausted. Although the Statute does not expressly allow for any exception to this requirement, the Tribunal's case law is clear that 'where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, will have been met if, though doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time' [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1829, 2039
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the [Tribunal's]Statute, '[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations'. The only exceptions allowed under the Tribunal's case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, for example, Judgments 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511 and the case law cited therein, and 2582)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511, 2582
Keywords:
absence of final decision; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2901
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As the Tribunal had occasion to explain in Judgment 456, under 2, the purpose of [the] provisions [of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute] is twofold. Their first aim is to enable an official to defend his or her interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administration has failed to take a decision. Their second aim is to prevent a dispute from dragging on indefinitely, which would undermine the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations. It follows from these twin purposes that, if the Administration fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of his or her claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2872
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Application for execution of Judgment 2616.
The complainant requested inter alia that the UNJSPF be made a party to the proceeding. The Tribunal rejected that request on the grounds that the UNJSPF is not subject to its jurisdiction.
"In addition to his application for execution of Judgment 2616, the complainant asks that the UNJSPF be added as a co defendant in this proceeding and that it be held jointly responsible with UNESCO for the consequences stemming from the delay in payment of the pension benefits. This request is rejected. The UNJSPF is not subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be made a party to this proceeding. As well, even if the Fund were subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the proceeding concerns the execution of a judgment against UNESCO and not the Fund."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616
Keywords:
co-defendant; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; unjspf;
Judgment 2863
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2783
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The complainant, who parks his car in the Vienna International Centre (VIC), is challenging the decision to double the monthly parking fee effective 1 January 2007.
"In the present case, the impugned decision affects the complainant not as a staff member of the Agency but in his capacity as a user of the VIC garage. Moreover, the financial conditions governing the use of this garage, which is merely a facility offered to the staff of the various international organisations occupying the VIC, do not form part of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the Agency's Staff Regulations.
'While the payment of the fee for the use of the garage does in fact take the form of a direct deduction from the Agency's staff members' salaries, this is simply a means of payment adopted for convenience sake, which does not in any way alter the nature of the fee and does not, in particular, have the effect of incorporating it into the complainant's terms of employment. In this respect, the deduction is comparable to those which an employer may effect from an employee's wages for the purpose of paying, for example, a tax or contribution that is levied at source; here too, the fact that the tax or contribution is so deducted does not afford grounds for considering it to be part of the employee's terms of employment.
This dispute does not therefore fall within the scope of the [...] provisions of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; competence of tribunal; condition; contract; deduction; effect; facilities; iloat statute; increase; official; payment; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2780
106th Session, 2009
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720
Keywords:
apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;
Judgment 2740
105th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2720
105th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant alleges that the ITU, in its letter to the journalist, made "scandalous" attacks on the Tribunal. "The Tribunal will not respond to the arguments presented in the complaint regarding prejudice that it allegedly suffered itself as a result of the circulation of the disputed message. The issue raised in this regard, which has no direct bearing on the dispute between the complainant and the ITU regarding compliance with obligations arising from their contractual relationship, falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as restrictively defined in Article II of its Statute. Furthermore, the Tribunal could not rule on such arguments without breaching its duty of impartiality."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat statute; injury; lack of injury; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; vested competence;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
Judgment 2657
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant, a former President of the Staff Council, asks the Tribunal to declare null and void the extraordinary general assembly session and the ensuing Staff Council election. "Article II of the Tribunal's Statute [...] requires that the complainant's claim for annulment of the election of the new Staff Council be dismissed. So too must his claim that a new election be conducted without delay by a neutral body (see Judgment 78). Such rights as the complainant has in relation to the affairs of the Staff Association and the Staff Council derive from the Statutes of the Staff Association. They do not concern the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations or those general principles of law applicable to international civil servants."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 78
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; election; iloat statute; staff union;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"By Article VIII of its Statute the Tribunal is empowered to rescind impugned decisions, to order the performance of obligations and to award compensation. It is not empowered to order apologies. Nor is it empowered to require undertakings as to performance of obligations in the future, as claimed by the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
Keywords:
allowance; apology; claim; competence of tribunal; decision quashed; iloat statute; organisation; organisation's duties; payment;
Judgment 2631
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2623
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has no authority to issue interim injunctions against organisations that have accepted its jurisdiction."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; judicial review; organisation; vested competence;
Judgment 2573
102nd Session, 2007
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Notification of non-renewal or non-extension of a contract is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms. However, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; contract; decision; effect; extension of contract; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; provision; refusal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
