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 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"That he set out his pleas in a brief entered several months [after filing his complaint] after due extension of the time limit granted for the purpose, has no bearing on receivability. As was held in Judgment 1305 [...] under 16 - to which the Tribunal draws the organization's attention - the Registrar may as such take any action he sees fit to safeguard due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1305
Keywords:
case law; complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; new time limit; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1516
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The complainant wants the Tribunal to 'declare that UNESCO has failed to act and itself make the final determination [regarding the degree of her invalidity] that the organization has for years been refusing' her. Having put up with years of dilatoriness and prevarication,she is understandably anxious to have her entitlements speedily determined. Being unable, however, to rule on the medical aspects of her case, the Tribunal has no choice but to send the case back to the organization for completion of the process of review in keeping with the rules."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; iloat statute; invalidity; judicial review; medical board; medical examination; medical opinion; rate;
Judgment 1509
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that UNIDO was administering the [joint UN and UNIDO service in which the complainant was working] made neither the complainant one of its officials nor the organization a party to the contract of employment. According to his letters of appointment the complainant was subject to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of the United Nations, not of UNIDO. And even if in administering the service UNIDO did apply its own Staff Regulations to the complainant he did not on that account become a member of its staff. So any complaint by him that UNDO failed to apply, or misapplied, its Staff Regulations to him is not within the Tribunal's competence."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
applicable law; competence of tribunal; contract; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; official; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Article II(5) empowers the Tribunal to hear a complaint which an official of an international organisation that has duly recognised its jurisdiction has filed and which alleges non-observance of either the terms of the official's appointment or the Staff Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 231 [...], those are 'two conditions which in practice coincide'. The reference to 'Staff Regulations' means those of the organisation of which a complainant is or was an official and does not include the Staff Regulations of any other."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II(5) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 231
Keywords:
applicable law; breach; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; locus standi; official; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The Tribunal's competence is determined by the provisions of its Statute. Neither the ruling by the Joint Appeals bBoard on its own competence nor the Director-General's endorsement or acquiescence can give the Tribunal jurisdiction which its Statute does not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OFTHE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence; competence of tribunal; executive head; iloat statute; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1506
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
"The Organization objects that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the decision impugned is not a final one: the complainant has, it pleads, failed to exhaust the internal means of redress because he did not appeal to the Joint Appeals Board [...] The plea is upheld [...] The conclusion is that the complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant filed within the time limit in the Statute the complaint form provided for in the Schedule to the Rules. The entries sufficed to identify the decision he was impugning and the relief he was claiming. The registering of the complaint and the correcting of it within the time limit were in line with the Rules. Since the complaint was lodged in time the Organization's objection to receivability fails."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; correction of complaint; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant had notice of the impugned decision; Article 6(1) of the Rules sets out the requirements of form; and 6(2) says that if not satisfied that the complaint meets those requirements the registrar shall call upon the complainant to correct it within thirty days. The Rules do not say that all the formal requirements must be met by the date of filing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(1) AND 6(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1486
80th Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is true that Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires a complainant, before he files suit with the Tribunal, not just to apply for internal review but also to await the outcome of the internal proceedings. Yet that is not a hard-and-fast rule, even though the Statute does not allow any express derogation. If a complainant does his utmost to procure a decision, and if nevertheless the internal appeals body evinces by its statements or conduct an intention not to report within a reasonable time, justice requires that an exception be made. A mere failure to proceed with all proper speed and diligence is not enough: it is only if the proceedings have been so protracted that the delay is inordinate, unexplained and inexcusable that such an intention will be inferred: see Judgments 408 [...] and 451 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 408, 451
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant had done everything in his power to exhaust his internal remedies and [at a certain date] it was quite clear that the internal process of review would not be concluded within a time which the Tribunal may regard as reasonable in the circumstances. [...] The complaint is therefore receivable."
Keywords:
administrative delay; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1469
80th Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"To satisfy the requirement in Article VII(1) the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose for internal procedures."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1464
80th Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant contends that her complaint is receivable because she may act under Article VII(3), the organization having failed to take its decision on her appeal within the sixty days' time limit set in that provision. But her reading of VII(3) is mistaken. It does not require that the process of appeal be completed within sixty days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1455
79th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Vide Judgment 532, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; complaint; exception; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1452
79th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant has come to the Tribunal without waiting for the completion of the internal appeal procedure and for the final decision by the Director-General that will result therefrom. He has therefore failed to exhaust the means of internal appeal and there is no final decision yet for him to impugn. Article VII(3) does not apply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; cause of action; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In Judgment 1932 - submits the [organisation] - the Tribunal held under 18 and 24 that [...] a suit, [filed in the general interests of the civil service,] of which the hallmark is action by staff associations or agents professing to represent them, does not form part of the system of individual appeal that the organisations which have recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction commonly provide for in their rules and that the Tribunal's own Statute contemplates. The Tribunal need not revert to that case law since this is not such a complaint. It has been filed by several officials with the commendable aim of making the proceedings simpler, and each of them is defending his own individual interests, even though they are the same as the others'. The objection [to receivability for being a 'collective' complaint] fails."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1448
79th Session, 1995
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
"The Tribunal holds that the decision [against which the complainant submitted an internal appeal] was not a final one, the object [...] being only to initiate discussion: see Judgment 336 [...]. Although he had been identified as a staff member 'likely to be terminated', there was [...] no actual decision that he would be terminated at such and such a date or on stated terms". "He failed to submit an appeal [against the final decision] and thereby failed to exhaust the internal means of redress available to him. Accordingly, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 336
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; statement of intent;
Judgment 1447
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant was wrongfully dismissed and "there are no proven facts which make his reinstatement 'not possible or advisable' within the meaning of Article VIII of the Tribunal's sSatute. The organisation must reinstate him and pay him salary, allowances and other entitlements as from [the date of his dismissal]. He need not give credit for any sums he may have earned since that date. For that reason he is awarded no sum in moral damages".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
allowance; date; iloat statute; moral injury; reinstatement; salary;
Judgment 1433
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Article VII (1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires that for a complaint to be receivable the complainant must have 'exhausted such other means of resisting a final decision as are open to him under the applicable staff regulations'. The Tribunal recognises that reasonable time must be allowed for completing the internal appeal procedure. Yet in this case [fifteen months had passed between the date of the complainant's internal appeal and the organization's response to the appeal] objections to receivability ill become the defendant".
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; date; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; reply;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As to his further claims in his rejoinder, the Tribunal observes that [...] the complainant neither challenged [a given claim] in his internal appeal [...] nor set out the claims in the form introducing the present complaint. He has made the claims in internal appeals which are still pending, and the claims are therefore at present irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; claim; complaint; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 1429
79th Session, 1995
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
See Judgment 1244.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244
Keywords:
case law; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1419
78th Session, 1995
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The second sentence of [Article VIII of the Tribunal's Statute] does no more than allow an alternative, to which the Tribunal may resort as it deems fit, in the particular case where there is difficulty over discharging some non-financial obligation. The reference in the article to the possibility of awarding 'compensation for the injury caused' does not preclude the Tribunal's determining, in exercise of the competence conferred by the first sentence, the financial consequences of an organisation's failure to abide by its staff regulations or to discharge its contractual obligations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; iloat statute; injury; judicial review; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1418
78th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The written submissions for which the Tribunal's Statute provides have afforded [the complainant] a further opportunity to gain particulars of the charges and to answer them in full in his rejoinder. The plea of breach of due process cannot be sustained."
Keywords:
complaint; due process; iloat statute; right to reply; submissions;
Judgment 1417
78th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In accordance with Article 11(1) of its Rules the Tribunal invites the International Civil Service Commission "by the present order to make any further submissions in answer to the complainants' claims [...] that it considers necessary. It will allow the Commission thirty days in which to do so."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11(1) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; icsc statute; iloat statute; interlocutory order; time limit;
Judgment 1401
78th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute "cannot apply to the Appeals Committee, which does not make administrative decisions but is an advisory body, with representatives of both management and staff, which submits mere recommendations. It is the Director-General who takes the final decision on the Committee's recommendation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; advisory body; decision; effect; executive head; iloat statute; internal appeals body; recommendation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
