Judgment of the Tribunal (120, 22, 23, 121, 122, 123, 690, 871, 124, 125, 126, 842, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 127, 133, 134, 745, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 672, 825, 826, 140, 315, 644, 650, 676, 689, 692, 693, 665, 740, 886, 914,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Judgment of the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 144
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. A recent example is Judgment 4600, consideration 2. In that case, no joinder was ordered, notwithstanding that the complaints, the joinder of which was sought, concerned the same continuum of events. If the complaints concern the same or similar questions of fact and law, then it is probable that the same or related orders will be made dispositive of the several complaints.
In the present case, notwithstanding the linkage discussed earlier, the ultimate legal issues are quite different. At base, the first complaint requires a consideration of the legality of placing the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file. Any orders made, will address that question, unless the complaint is dismissed. At base, the second complaint addresses a different issue, namely the lawfulness of the decision to close the complainant’s harassment complaint, and again, any orders made, will address that question, unless the complaint is dismissed. Therefore, the two complaints will not be joined to form the subject of a single judgment, though they will be considered at the same session by the same panel of judges.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4600
Keywords:
identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal; order;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 4076
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he order contained in the decision of Judgment 3927 was clear and the application for review did not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7). The execution depended on the payment of an established amount of money and the UPU had to execute the judgment within one month from the date of its delivery (see Judgment 3152, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 3152, 3927
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 4066
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As to the complainant’s request that the CDP’s written feedback be removed from her personnel file, consistent precedent requires that a staff member should be notified of any document that is placed on her or his file and be given an opportunity to respond to it (see, for example, Judgment 3487, under 9). The written feedback is an integral part of the complainant’s personnel file. The record shows that the complainant had an opportunity to respond to the written assessment. Her written response also forms part of her file. No order to remove the written feedback from her personnel file will be made. It is also assumed that the present judgment will be included in her personnel file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3487
Keywords:
judgment of the tribunal; personal file;
Judgment 3355
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
"[The organisation] based its dismissal of the complainant’s claims on the [...] view that, in accordance with the principle that the Tribunal’s judgments produce their effects only between the parties, the complainant, who was neither a complainant nor an intervener in any of the cases giving rise to those three judgments, could not rely on the rights which those judgments conferred on their beneficiaries.
This reasoning per se is certainly entirely consistent with the Tribunal’s long-established case law, as confirmed, for example, in similar cases in Judgments 2463, under 13, 3002, under 14 and 15, or 3181, under 9 and 10."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2463, 2985, 2986, 3002, 3034, 3181
Keywords:
effect; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 3348
118th Session, 2014
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision to summarily dismiss him for misconduct (fraud).
Consideration 20
Extract:
"While the judgments of the Tribunal which establish the need for the ultimate decision-maker to explain why they refuse to follow a favourable recommendation of an internal appeal body (see for example Judgment 3161, consideration 7) do not address a case on all fours as the present, the principle nonetheless has application in this matter."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161
Keywords:
grounds; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 3197
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the application for review of Judgment 2946, as there was no new fact giving rise to review.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal explained in Judgment 2693, under 2: 'A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2).'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270, 2693
Keywords:
application for review; condition; effect; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3154
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The ITU applies for interpretation of paragraph 2 of the decision in Judgment 2958 concerning the definition of "gross salary" for the calculation of termination indemnity.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The ordinary meaning of 'gross salary' is the full amount of a staff member’s regular remuneration including allowances, overtime pay, commissions and bonuses, and any other amount usually paid, before any deductions are made. In context, the notion of 'gross salary' was chosen to indicate the base salary prior to the staff deduction, plus all allowances and benefits. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the award of damages had to be the equivalent of reinstatement and that the express purpose was to compensate the complainant for the time he 'should have worked with the Union'."
Keywords:
amount; application for interpretation; compensation; gross salary; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; material damages;
Judgment 3153
114th Session, 2013
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for interpretation and execution of Judgment 2861.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As the complainant was not reinstated, her employment relationship with WMO ended on 3 November 2006 and with her separation from service, her right to participate in the UNJSPF ended (see Judgments 1338, 1797 and 1904). Further, as also stated in Judgment 2621 under 5, 'had it been its intent the Tribunal would have specifically ordered the payment of an amount equivalent to the pension fund contributions that would otherwise have been paid by the [organisation]'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1338, 1797, 1904, 2621, 3061
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; case law; contribution rate; contributions; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; pension; reinstatement; unjspf;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Tribunal, which has the power to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that its judgments are executed, may, if it considers it appropriate, order the payment of a penalty for default (see, for example, Judgments 1620, under 10, or 2806, under 11). In the present case, the patent lack of goodwill demonstrated by [the organisation] to date with regard to honouring its obligation to pay the awards made against it justifies the imposition of a penalty, as requested by the complainant, of 25,000 euros for each month's delay in the settlement of the awards made in this judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 2806
Keywords:
application for execution; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3131
113th Session, 2012
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
This judgment [i.e. different judgment between the same parties], which was delivered after the parties to the present proceedings had made their final submissions, has the effect of overturning the facts in the case by depriving it of its main purpose.
Keywords:
case without object; claim moot; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, when an organisation is ordered to grant a financial benefit to a staff member who fulfilled the legal requirements for claiming it, but who failed to do so as soon as his/her entitlement arose, the benefit in question is due only as from the date of the initial claim by the person concerned, and not the date on which he/she became entitled to the benefit ([...] see Judgment 2550, under 6, or Judgment 2860, under 22). There would be no justification for ordering an organisation unexpectedly to pay potentially large, backdated, aggregated sums for benefits which had not been claimed by the staff member concerned when he or she should have done so. [...] [Moreover] it is true that the position would be different if the Organization itself were responsible for the fact that the [staff member] did not submit a claim [at that time]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2550, 2860
Keywords:
amount; condition; date; delay; exception; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; medical expenses; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3058
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is a fundamental principle that a person cannot, in separate proceedings, challenge a judgment to which he was a party by raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings."
Keywords:
finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
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 3013
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The obligation to pay compound interest is always an exception. According to the Tribunal's case law, such an obligation must arise from the operative part of its judgments. In this case, to quote the language of consideration 4 of Judgment 802, "if the Tribunal had meant compound interest, [...] it would have used words to that effect"."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 802
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; consequence; exception; interest on damages; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion of icj; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;
Consideration 30
Extract:
"To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; grounds; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Consideration 32
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may at any time decide, when it renders a judgment, to defer the execution thereof if it considers such a measure justified (see Judgment 82 [...], under 5). It is therefore for the organisation concerned, if it seeks to have the execution of a judgment deferred in the event that it proves unfavourable to itself, to submit a subsidiary claim for that purpose. If the Tribunal did not order such a deferral in its decision, it must be deemed to have implicitly required the decision to be executed immediately, in conformity with the general rule, and it is therefore scarcely conceivable that an organisation could be allowed to request a stay of execution of the judgment at a later stage."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
claim; counterclaim; date; execution of judgment; implied decision; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3002
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13 to 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time [...]. In particular, the fact that a complainant may have discovered a new fact showing that the impugned decision is unlawful only after the expiry of the time limit for submitting an appeal is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, 1466, under 5 and 6, or 2821, under 8).
It is true that, notwithstanding these rules, the Tribunal's case law allows an employee concerned by an administrative decision which has become final to ask the Administration for review either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or else when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he/she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, or 2722, under 4). However, the fact that, after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against a decision, the Tribunal has rendered a judgment on the lawfulness of a similar decision in another case, does not come within the scope of these exceptions.
In particular, in the instant case, the complainant's argument that the delivery of Judgment 2359 constitutes a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law, is to no avail. In Judgment 676 the Tribunal did accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described in these terms and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal. But the circumstances of the case were very special in that the Tribunal, in previous judgments which it cited in that case, had formulated a rule which had greatly altered the position of certain staff members of an organisation and which, although already applied by the organisation, had until then not been published or communicated to the staff members concerned. No exceptional circumstances of this nature exist in the instant case [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 676, 1466, 2203, 2359, 2722, 2821
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; late appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; suspension of the execution of a judgment; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[The principle of] res judicata [applies] only [to] judicial rulings, and not [to] administrative decisions."
Keywords:
decision; definition; enforcement; judgment of the tribunal; limits; res judicata;
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;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal will review an earlier judgment on the basis of discovery of a 'new' fact, but only if it was 'discovered too late to [be] cite[d] in the original proceedings' (see Judgment 442, under 3 and 13). However, the question whether a fact is 'new' is always whether it could, with diligence, have been discovered at the time of the earlier proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The interveners [...] are [...] in a similar legal situation to that of the complainant. They must therefore be granted the benefit of the rights recognised by this judgment."
Keywords:
complainant; consequence; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; right;
Consideration 29
Extract:
"The complainant has requested that the order to Eurocontrol to recalculate the pensionable years credited to him be accompanied by a penalty for default. In the absence of any grounds for doubting that the Agency will execute this judgment in good faith and with diligence, as is its duty since it has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction, there is no reason to order such a penalty."
Keywords:
claim; consequence; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
