|
|
 |
|
|
Purport (625,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Purport
Total judgments found: 23
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
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.
"It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; complainant; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2296
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"There can be no doubt of the right of an international organisation to set obligatory rules for the conduct of its staff governing various aspects of their relations with their employer, and that this right includes the right to set reasonable limitation periods during which claims against the employer must be asserted. However, such rules must be published or otherwise made known to all the members of staff concerned in a way which can leave absolutely no doubt as to the nature and reach of the rule, and no doubt that it has been brought to the attention of all those to whom it applies. Even if the [Organization] had succeeded in showing that the tax reimbursement instructions had been given to the staff individually, which it has signally failed to do, it would also have to have shown that all others in like case had been similarly advised. Rules limiting the right to exercise a fundamental condition of employment applicable to all international civil servants are only permissible if they, too, are applicable to all."
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review; limits; official; organisation's duties; payment; provision; publication; purport; reasonable time; refund; right; tax; terms of appointment; time limit;
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 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant assumes that the provisions of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat, being subordinate legislation, are incompatible with the corresponding provisions of the primary legislation, namely the Staff Rules. The Tribunal considers that the notice "does not merely implement or clarify the Staff Rule; it purports to extend its reach substantially. It cannot stand."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; condition; definition; difference; enforcement; limits; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purport; purpose; staff regulations and rules;
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 2057
91st Session, 2001
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Following Judgments 1682 and 1887, adjustments of the 1995-1996 salary scales have been retroactively raised. The organisation paid the difference in salary but did not adjust the salary scales for the following years (those salary scales had been calculated based on the old 1995-1996 salary scales). The Tribunal states that "the [organisation]'s retroactive reconstitution of the adjustments had the paradoxical effect of limiting the application of the [...] staff's improved salary scales to a single year, and of reducing their salary levels [...] after [...] 1996. The result is an impairment of rights: staff are entitled to expect that any adjustments to their pay will be made on the basis of the salary scales which were established lawfully for the period preceding the adjustment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1887
Keywords:
accumulation; adjustment; date; effect; increase; official; purport; right; salary; scale;
Judgment 1912
88th Session, 2000
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The organisation amended the Staff Regulations. The text adopted by the Council was a simplified version of text that had been submitted for the opinion of a committee having staff representatives. "A further consultation of a body which must give its opinion on a draft text is necessary only if substantial changes are made to the text[...]."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; amendment to the rules; organisation's duties; purport; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1893
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organization. The Tribunal considers that "Judgment 1814 did not imply that his case succeeded on the merits; its sole objective was to send the case back to [the organization]'s competent bodies so that a lawful decision could be taken."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; flaw; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand;
Judgment 1892
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organisation. The Tribunal considers that "it was appropriate to resume the procedure by referring the matter back to the Joint Committee for Disputes because it was the unlawful nature of the latter's opinion that led to the quashing of the decision. However, proper execution of the judgment did not necessarily imply recognition that the complainant's appeal was sound: all that was required was a new decision taken after due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; execution of judgment; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand; report;
Judgment 1764
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[A]lthough in all fairness an organisation must tell the staff member of the charges against him, it need not go into the detail of the penalties he may be incurring. Besides, the complainant must be deemed to have been familiar with the [staff] rules, and they do set out all the penalties, including dismissal. The staff member's right to know and to answer the charges against him does not require that he be told just what the punishment may be if he is found guilty."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; honesty; limits; organisation's duties; purport; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1696
84th Session, 1998
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [administrative] practice on which [the Organization] does rely can have no effect in law. The conditions that make a practice an enforceable custom are not met. The alleged rule is not widely recognised as binding; indeed opinion varies on what it actually is."
Keywords:
applicable law; condition; practice; purport;
Judgment 1653
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In accordance with Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute, "where the Staff Regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the Regulations or implementing rules."
Keywords:
complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; purport; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1590
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The rule that any decision adversely affecting a person shall state the grounds on which it was based requires "that he be aware of them so that he may - for one thing - challenge them on appeal. He may learn of them from some other document, or from prior proceedings, or orally, or even later in answer to his objections".
Keywords:
decision; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; purport; purpose; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1441
79th Session, 1995
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Although an explanation of the reasons for an administrative decision affords an essential safeguard of the staff member's rights, consistent precedent has it that the form the explanation takes will depend on the nature of the decision and the context in which it is taken. Here UNESCO is right in stating that each successive decision, from the provisional suspension from duty to the final act of dismissal, was taken in a context that the complainant was quite well aware of. The suspension came after the questioning of him by the inspectors; the dismissal after the report by the Disciplinary Committee; and the final confirmation of dismissal after the Appeals Board hearings. The text of each decision so explicitly cites the material background that he may not properly contend he was caught unawares or profess ignorance of the reasons for each decision and what it meant."
Keywords:
case law; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; purport; safeguard; termination of employment;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"To what extent must an administration substantiate its decisions? The answer is that it depends on the sort of decision that is to be substantiated. In the present case a distinction must be drawn between the rejection of an external application, particularly where a competition has attracted many candidates, and the rejection of an application by a serving official. In the latter case the organisation has a duty to maintain the relations of trust it has with the staff member, and although it must remain free to choose how it will notify the reasons to him it must be wary of damaging his career prospects."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; internal candidate; organisation's duties; purport; refusal; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The duty to explain a decision is a general principle of administrative law: the decision-maker must at least give such statement of the reasons for the decision that anyone it affects may defend his rights and the Tribunal may rule on any case before it. But the content of the duty will vary with the nature of the decision."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; general principle; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; purport; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1334
76th Session, 1994
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"The Tribunal does not require of the Agency the sort of strict attention to form that might bring its work to a standstill, but will require scrupulous observance of forms and procedures that protect staff interests in any administration that is lawfully managed and subject to proper review."
Keywords:
due process; general principle; organisation's duties; purport; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1297
75th Session, 1993
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
See Judgment 1296, consideration 7.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 67(2) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
case law; european court of justice (ecj); interpretation; law of european communities; purport; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1296
75th Session, 1993
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is not bound by the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, but inasmuch as Article 67(2) is derived from the article bearing the same number in the Staff Regulations of the Communities, the Court's decisions do carry persuasive authority."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 67(2) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
case law; european court of justice (ecj); interpretation; law of european communities; purport; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1231
74th Session, 1993
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of a decision to dismiss him following the abolition of his post. The only grounds given for his dismissal are "just a broad allusion to the organization's 'service requirements' or 'interests'. Such terms are meaningless unless there is a fuller explanation enabling the staff member and, if need be, the Tribunal to grasp the actual reasons, especially where the outcome is as drastic as abolition of post and dismissal."
Keywords:
abolition of post; decision; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purport; staff member's interest; termination of employment;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
