|
|
 |
|
|
Binding character (581,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Binding character
Total judgments found: 58
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4770
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]t must be recalled that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a practice cannot become legally binding where, as in the present case, it contravenes specific rules which are already in force (see, for example, Judgment 4555, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4555
Keywords:
binding character; practice;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Setting up of a pension fund to replace existing pension scheme and introduction of implementing measures.
"[T]he principle of '[r]es judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard'. The principle applies when the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see Judgments 1216, under 3, and 1263, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 1263, 2316
Keywords:
binding character; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In accordance with these principles, an individual decision affecting an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to him or her in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 2112, under 7(a), and 2201, under 4). As a general rule, such a decision may therefore be reversed only if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see Judgments 994, under 14, or 1006, under 2). Furthermore, where an individual decision does not create rights, provided that the principle of good faith is respected, it may be reversed at any time (see Judgment 587, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 587, 994, 1006, 2112, 2201
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; condition; decision; good faith; individual decision; promotion; repeal; right; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 2848
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"Having regard to the complainant's actions and his persistent, disingenuous attempts to reformulate the contents of communications, the Tribunal finds that the complainant's assertion that he did not reject the offer of the appointment as Chief of Cabinet and Director of ODG is not credible, and that he indeed rejected that offer on 1 August 2002. In the circumstances, the Organization was under no obligation to keep the offer open for any further period. Since it was not kept open, its purported acceptance did not give rise to a binding contract."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; binding character; contract; law of contract; limits; notice; offer; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 2592, under 14, it is well established in the case law that «[t]here is a binding contract if there is manifest on both sides an intention to contract and if all the essential terms have been settled and if all that remains to be done is a formality which requires no further agreement»."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2592
Keywords:
acceptance; binding character; contract; effect; intention of parties; law of contract; offer;
Judgment 2760
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2368
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In the context of a voluntary staff reduction programme the complainants signed individual letters agreeing to their termination of appointment. Once the agreed termination was concluded, neither the separation itself nor the conditions agreed upon were subject to revision. The complainants were entitled to either a termination indemnity or an end-of-service-allowance, whichever was greater. They received the termination indemnity and want the Organization to pay them the end-of-service-allowance. The Tribunal considers that "each complainant expressly waived his/her right to appeal the separation from service or to seek any form of compensation other than the payments specified in the letter of agreed termination. In view of that waiver, the complainants could not contest an overall financial settlement which [...] did not allow them to claim any further indemnity. The Tribunal finds no misrepresentation on the part of the Organization and considers that the terms of [...] the letters signed by the complainants - which have acquired contractual status - were clear. It therefore rejects the complainants' claims."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; binding character; compensatory measure; staff reduction; terminal entitlements; termination of employment; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 2366
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"It is clear from Judgments 1560, 2112, 2201, and 2213 that a decision becomes binding on an organisation only when it is notified to the official concerned in the prescribed manner or in some other manner that gives rise to an inference that it was intended to notify the official of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560, 2112, 2201, 2213
Keywords:
binding character; case law; condition; decision; difference; formal requirements; official; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose;
Judgment 2354
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; condition; consequence; decision; due process; duty to inform; executive head; flaw; grade; grounds; independence; lack of evidence; official; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2258
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Communications from an organisation to a staff member must be interpreted according to the meaning that their addressee can reasonably ascribe to them. Since it owes a duty of care to its employees, an administration which intends to take a compulsory decision binding the person concerned must express its decision clearly so as to remove from its action any potentially harmful ambiguity."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; duty of care; effect; injury; interpretation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation withheld the complainant's salary increment on the grounds that more time was needed to assess her performance. The Tribunal concludes from the relevant provisions that "the requirement that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of the annual salary increment is a formal one. The salary increment [...] was not preceded by an evaluation [...] it is the Organisation's responsibility to see to it that [an annual performance] report is prepared on time. a staff member's right to an increment cannot be defeated by the organisation's failure to comply with its own rules."
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; breach; consequence; date; grounds; increase; increment; increment withheld; official; organisation; organisation's duties; performance report; provision; refusal; right; salary; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2112
92nd Session, 2002
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"A decision affecting an official will always be preceded by administrative formalities, but it will become binding on the organisation only when it is notified to the official, in the manner prescribed by the organisation (see Judgment 1560, under 9). Notification may also take some other form as long as it can be inferred from it that the organisation intended to notify the decision. But information about the formalities themselves is clearly not notification. In the interests of clarity it is desirable, and indeed often the practice, for the person concerned by some future decision to be given such information. But to see it as notification of a decision would be wrong and could lead to serious confusion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560
Keywords:
administrative instruction; binding character; condition; date; decision; definition; duty to inform; effect; formal requirements; purport;
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 1979
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935
Keywords:
binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1547
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
"The EPO had no formal agreement with the union about facilities such as the distribution of a summons to a meeting. But it admitted to the Appeals Committee that its consistent practice since 1992 had been to distribute any unsealed unofficial internal mail, whether private or not, save any text containing a personal attack on someone. Was such usage binding in law? [...] The plain expectation of the staff was that the EPO would deliver notices from their union without let or hindrance." Therefore the complaints succeed.
Keywords:
binding character; discretion; facilities; flaw; freedom of association; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; practice; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 1514
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
As said in Judgments 1329 and 1368 "there is no obligation in law to align with the cost of living or with take-home pay. Though CERN must work out the pay raises fairly and objectively, with due regard to the relevant components, the methodology puts it under no obligation to match pay rises to trends in the cost of living in Geneva. That would be tantamount to indexing, and the rules do not require it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329, 1368
Keywords:
adjustment; binding character; case law; cost-of-living increase; organisation's duties; reckoning; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1446
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
It is "worth recalling [...] that the increases at issue [...] offend against the norms of the 'common system', which are binding on any organisation that belongs: see Judgments 1239, [...] under 7 and 8, and 1265, [...] under 36."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1239, 1265
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; case law; coordinated organisations; rule of another organisation;
Judgment 1419
78th Session, 1995
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"Contrary to what its constant use of the term 'pay policy' seeks to suggest, [the ESO's] taking the procedure of the co-ordinated organisations as its point of reference plainly incorporated into its internal rules legal criteria that it would otherwise have had to put in binding provisions of the staff rules."
Keywords:
binding character; effect; rule of another organisation; salary;
Judgment 1406
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant may not validly argue that she held a contract with the organization. Although she and various officers of the WHO did sign a proposal to extend her contract, it "was never approved by the competent officers; besides, it did not purport to be a decision and was not binding upon the WHO. So there is no valid basis in law for the rights she is claiming from the organization."
Keywords:
binding character; contract; decision; effect; non-renewal of contract; proposal;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
