Date (597,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Date
Total judgments found: 130
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 3225
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully asks for her short-term contracts to be converted into fixed-term contracts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaint form was filed within the time limit specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, albeit without the brief and supporting evidence which, according to Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal, had to be appended to it. Contrary to [the defendant]’s submissions, this does not signify that the complaint was submitted out of time, since paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article affords the complainant the possibility of correcting a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the Rules. In the instant case, the complaint was corrected on 30 March 2011, within the time limit set by the Registrar of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute; Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; date; formal requirements; iloat statute; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
"Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
Keywords:
acceptance; age limit; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; request by a party; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2986, 3034
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; request by a party;
Judgment 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3120
113th Session, 2012
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
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 3074
112th Session, 2012
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
[M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3070
112th Session, 2012
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 3037
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls the principle that the lawfulness of a measure must be appraised as at the date of its adoption. In consequence thereof all subsequent facts are irrelevant (see Judgment 2365, under 4(c))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
date; decision; general principle; judicial review; subsequent fact;
Judgment 3035
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant was suspended from duty on 4 September 2008.
"The Tribunal finds that, in maintaining the complainant's suspension by his decision of 6 July 2009, the Director General extended the duration of this suspension beyond the reasonable limit accepted by the case law and thus caused the complainant moral and professional injury."
Keywords:
breach; case law; cause; date; executive head; extension of contract; injury; moral injury; professional injury; reasonable time; suspension;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2459, under 9, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; provision; request by a party;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
"The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;
Judgment 2889
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 and 7
Extract:
"In accordance with the Tribunal's case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see, for instance, Judgment 1887, under 8). An exception must, however, be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; date; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he date on which an employee takes up his or her duties depends on the number of staff the Organisation needs in order to function efficiently, which is a matter lying within its discretionary authority. Of course this does not exempt it from objectively weighing its own interests against those of the new recruit. In particular, it must not act arbitrarily or abuse its authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; bias; date; discretion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; staff member's interest;
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 2850
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's contract, issued on 18 July 2007 and effective as of 30 November, preceded his actual separation from service by more than four months. The Tribunal is of the view that in the present case that period of time was long enough for it to be deemed to comply with [the Organization's obligation to give the complainant reasonable notice]."
Keywords:
contract; date; effect; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2821
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 to 10
Extract:
The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
"The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.
Keywords:
contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension. However, interest on arrears was paid only to the members of staff who had filed a complaint with the Tribunal; the complainant was not among them. He is consequently challenging the decision not to pay him interest on arrears.
"(a) In the absence of any particular rule requiring the Organisation to pay interest on arrears to a staff member where a benefit due to that person is paid belatedly, such interest is not in principle due until the creditor - i.e. the staff member to whom the benefit is owed - has served notice on the Organisation to pay. This apparently harsh solution is justified because no particular formalities are required for the service of such notice, it being sufficient for the creditor to request payment of the amount due. [...]
(b) However, this rule does not apply where the debt is one which falls due on a fixed date. In such a case the due date is equivalent to the service of notice (dies interpellat pro homine). The debtor owes interest on arrears as from that date, without any need for the creditor to establish that he or she has requested payment of the due sum. The same applies where the debt falls due periodically at a fixed date, as in the case of a salary.
The salary adjustment at issue forms an integral part of the salary. Moreover, the salary, plus increments, is due on precise dates at the end of every month. In the instant case the payment of the staff member's salary, including the adjustment thereto, did not depend on a request from that person. The claim for interest on arrears is therefore well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; amount; complainant; date; debt; delay; exception; execution of judgment; formal requirements; general principle; increase; interest on damages; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; request by a party; retirement; salary;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
