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 2567
101st Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[I]t must be recalled that according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal '[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 Tribunal will on its own motion examine whether this condition of receivability is met (see Judgments 60, 1082 and 1095).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1082, 1095
Keywords:
application of law ex officio; complaint; condition; decision; iloat; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2503
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The evidence on file shows that the complainant was never an official of Eurocontrol, and the only contracts he has produced are temporary contracts signed with a temporary employment agency [which supplied him to the defendant] and governed by French law. According to Article II of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials or such provisions of the Staff Regulations as are applicable to their case. Since the complainant is not an official of Eurocontrol, and cannot produce any employment contract signed with the latter, it follows, as the Agency rightly contends, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; contract; domestic law; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; successive contracts;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant was assigned to the Organisation by temporary employment agencies. "The fact that Eurocontrol relied on its immunity from jurisdiction and on the Tribunal's competence to hear disputes between the Agency and its staff in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the conseil de prud'hommes, cannot deprive it of its right to request that the Tribunal decline jurisdiction in accordance with its Statute."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat statute; municipal court; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2473
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2461
99th Session, 2005
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-3
Extract:
ESO considers that the complainant's internal appeal is not receivable according to Article R VI 1.02 of the Staff Regulations since he is no longer a staff member.
"The organisation is correct. The Staff Regulations do not give him any right of internal appeal. [...] The complainant alleges a contradiction between ESO's Staff Rules and Regulations [...] and Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute. In fact, the language of the Tribunal's Statute does not specifically require the organisation to provide specific internal remedies, it only requires that those actually existing be exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) and (2) of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article R VI 1.02 of ESO's Staff Regulations
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2459
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"The complainants have filed three separate complaints. Each of them asserts that she is acting to defend her own personal freedom of association. This is sufficient to establish that, contrary to the defendant's view, the case does not in fact concern class actions which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear, bearing in mind that Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal makes provision for a system of individual appeals (see Judgment 1392, under 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392
Keywords:
collective rights; competence of tribunal; complaint; difference; freedom of association; iloat statute;
Judgment 2439
99th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The UPU contends that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that within the time provided for under Article VII(2) of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant merely filed his complaint form [...] without appending the brief referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal. [...] It may be recalled [...] that the possibility of correcting a complaint which does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 6(1) of the Rules is given to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict implications of a procedure with which they are not necessarily familiar."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(2) of the Statute and Article 6(1) of the Rules
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Association of Professional Staff has submitted an amicus curiae brief. Although the possibility of gathering the observations of an association or union representing staff interests is not envisaged under its Statute, the Tribunal considers that it can only be beneficial to extend that possibility, as do other international administrative tribunals, to associations and unions wishing to defend the rights of the staff members whom they represent in the context of disputes concerning decisions affecting the staff as a whole or a specific category of staff members. Indeed, the Organization has raised no objection to the Tribunal's examination of the submissions in question, which are not, however, to be equated with the brief of an intervener, and which are simply intended to clarify certain points raised by the complaints with the Tribunal."
Keywords:
amicus curiae; general decision; icsc decision; iloat statute; intervention; staff union;
Judgment 2416
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8 and 11
Extract:
"The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2381
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t is essential that both salaries and pensions be paid punctually and in full, if only on account of the precise commitments which beneficiaries may have to honour at the end or the beginning of each month. It would be unacceptable for the Tribunal, when dealing with a complaint of this kind, to take shelter - as the defendant has suggested - behind the principle of de minimis non curat praetor in order to dismiss the matter because it concerns apparently trifling amounts. That would be conceivable only if the Statute of the Tribunal included a provision whereby cases were subject to a prior selection process according to the magnitude of the interests at stake, which is not the case."
Keywords:
amount; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; organisation's duties; payment; pension; procedure before the tribunal; provision; salary;
Judgment 2376
98th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not renewed. He later reached a settlement agreement with the ILO which stated that the decision not to renew his contract would have no consequence on any future application submitted by him. He alleges a breach of the terms of the settlement agreement. "[T]he settlement, concluded well after the complainant's loss of his position as a staff member, was not a term or condition of his appointment, nor did it form part of the Staff Regulations. The Statute [of the Tribunal], in Article II(4), requires that where the dispute relates to an agreement outside the terms of employment of a staff member, the agreement must contain a provision giving the Tribunal competence over disputes with regard to its execution so that the Tribunal can hear such a dispute. There is none. The complaint is [therefore] irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 4, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; date; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vested competence;
Judgment 2364
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Even though it is only the 'decision' of 10 March 2002 which he wishes to have set aside, the complainant refers to facts which arose after that date and adds in his rejoinder that, since the final decision was dated 23 July 2002, 'all grievances raised until that date can validly be taken into account' as part of his complaint. [...] With regard to the claims based on facts subsequent to 10 March 2002 and presented as grounds for appeal, since internal remedies were not exhausted (Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal), they must be deemed irreceivable. [...] Furthermore, the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
claim; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; subsequent fact;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant seeks the revision of certain rules and policies. EFTA submits that such a claim is irreceivable. "In this it is clearly correct. Relevantly, the Tribunal is competent only to hear complaints with respect to the non-observance of the terms of appointment or the provisions of EFTA's Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; iloat statute; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2264
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(e)
Extract:
"In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability because the matter was not referred to the Appeals Council. "In the present case, that procedure was not and clearly could not have been followed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the Director-General, stripped of his functions, could have appealed to the Appeals Council established under his own authority, against a decision of the Conference of the States parties, with a view to obtaining a final decision by the new Director-General. [...] An appeal to the Appeals Council was inconceivable, and the impugned decision was clearly a final decision - within the meaning of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute [...] in that situation, a direct appeal to the Tribunal [...] was clearly the only remedy available to the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; competence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; member state; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Appeals Committee's report on the complainant's case was drafted in german. He expresses the view that in future its reports should be drafted in one of the official languages of the Tribunal, i. e. in either english or french. "The Tribunal recognises the difficulties arising from the translation of documents drafted in german [...] Nevertheless, it must remind the parties, which are aware of the fact, that its rules admit only two working languages - english and french - but that the [organisation] is perfectly entitled, as far as its own purposes are concerned, to use any of its three working languages, including german."
Keywords:
iloat; iloat statute; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation; report; right;
Judgment 2223
95th Session, 2003
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General [did not initiate] the appeal procedure invalidates the defendant's argument that internal remedies were not exhausted, although they should have been as required by article vii of the Tribunal's Statute. While it is regrettable that the case was never brought before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board, this does not prevent the Tribunal from ruling on the merits of the complaint, which has been filed within the applicable rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; consequence; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2003
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants did not challenge the initial decisions denying them an installation grant and therefore "those decisions became final and the complainants were barred from challenging them by filling up application forms years later and claiming the quashing of the decisions refusing them by implication the allowance for which their assignment to Maastricht made them eligible. The Joint Committee for Disputes was right to cite the principle of legal certainty which must govern relations between an organisation and its staff' and to note that it was not possible to [exempt] the persons concerned from the time bar, which the Tribunal is in any event bound to apply since it is mandatory'."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; effective date; exception; iloat statute; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1845
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Under Article II(6) of its Statute the Tribunal is open to a former staff member. However, Article II(5) restricts the competence of the Tribunal, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of a staff member or of the provisions of the applicable staff regulations. On expiry of the complainant's contract, he ceased to be a staff member. His complaint, concerning his non-selection [to the post of assistant to the head of administration] does not involve any allegation of the violation of any rights which he enjoyed under his contract or the Staff Regulations insofar as they continued to apply to him. The Tribunal therefore [cannot] entertain the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OFTHE STATUTE;
ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; contract; enforcement; external candidate; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1829
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Any challenge to administrative decisions which were rendered with regard to the complainant after the filing of the first internal appeal but which were not the subject of further internal appeals is irreceivable: such decisions are not final, the complainant not having exhausted all existing means of resisting them as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to review [an administrative decision] notwithstanding that the internal appeal procedure has not been completed. The Tribunal's case law has it that where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII(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. [The Tribunal refers to the case law.] The complainant's internal appeal was received by the organisation on 16 April 1997. Her statement is lengthy and has 24 annexes. Less than a month later the Vice-President completed his initial assessment of her claims and referred the matter to the Appeals Committee. She filed this complaint just over three months later. The Tribunal holds that at the date of filing the present complaint the internal appeal process had not been unreasonably delayed and there was no indication that it was unlikely to come to an end within a reasonable time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
case law; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
