|
|
 |
|
|
Injunction (672,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Injunction
Total judgments found: 20
Judgment 4885
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his training duties.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that some of the complainant’s claims are, moreover, irreceivable as they seek declarations of law (see, for example, Judgments 4700, consideration 2, or 3876, consideration 2) or injunctions that it does not have competence to issue.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876, 4700
Keywords:
declaration of law; injunction;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant misunderstands and misconceives the role of the Tribunal in this regard. It is not for the Tribunal to issue orders of the nature sought against individuals who are not parties to the pending dispute.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4818
138th Session, 2024
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision denying her and her dependents an individual medical insurance plan following her separation from service.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for an order to convert her GMIP into an IMIP is irreceivable, as the Tribunal’s case law clearly states that it lacks the competence to issue orders of this kind against international organisations (see, for example, Judgments 4804, consideration 2, 4065, consideration 9, 4039, consideration 17, and 2058, consideration 13). Her alternative claim for enrolment in the GMIP under terms provided to retirees also exceeds the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2058, 4039, 4065, 4804
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;
Consideration 2
Extract:
By one of his claims, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order that the EPO publish, in the EPO Gazette and/or on the intranet, the President’s […] decision on internal appeal RI/31/08 […], accompanied by a summary of the facts approved by himself. However, the Tribunal is not competent to make orders of this kind against international organisations (see Judgments 4065, consideration 9, 4039, consideration 17, and 2058, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2058, 4039, 4065
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; publication;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] considers that the complainant’s request for Eurocontrol to be “ordered to comply” with Articles 7 and 30 of the Staff Regulations cannot be granted. It is settled case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue such general declarations or declarations of law, or declaratory orders (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 6, 4492, consideration 8, and 4246, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4246, 4492, 4637
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the complainant’s claim for Eurocontrol to be “ordered to comply” with Articles 7 and 30 of the Staff Regulations cannot be granted. It is settled case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue such general declarations or declarations of law, or declaratory orders (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 6, 4492, consideration 8, and 4246, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4246, 4492, 4637
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4765
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open an administrative investigation into his conduct, and the dismissal of his harassment complaint.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant also requests the Tribunal to order Eurocontrol to conduct an administrative investigation into information which he had considered should be disclosed to the Organisation pursuant to Article 22a of the Staff Regulations, it is not for the Tribunal in any event to make an order of this kind.
Keywords:
injunction; opening of an investigation;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 5
Extract:
An order of […] measures [to mitigate the consequences of the complainant’s alleged harassment], including to permanently assign the complainant to another team, is beyond the Tribunal’s competence (see Judgment 4096, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4096
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4640
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a series of management acts regarding his administrative status.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant requests a retroactive upgrading of his post to grade A2 in career group A4/1 in relation to his post of Brand Manager occupied as of 2004 and to the position of Application Manager occupied as of 1 November 2006. These requests are rejected as a decision as to the level of a post is within the purview of the competent authorities charged with evaluating and classifying posts pursuant to the applicable rules and not within the purview of the Tribunal, which will only determine the legality of the exercise of that power (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 2, and 2514, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514, 4437
Keywords:
injunction; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the ILO to “take any other measures necessary to accommodate her” and, in particular, to bear the costs of any vocational retraining aiming to enable her to work in a job compatible with her functional impairments. However, the Tribunal is not competent to make orders of this kind against international organisations (see, for example, Judgments 4039, consideration 17, 3835, consideration 6, or 3506, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 3835, 4039
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4605
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness and the results of the election for members of the new Staff Council.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It can be seen that the second order is, in substance, an injunction restraining future conduct of WIPO which is couched in the most general and imprecise terms with a consequential interdependent effect on the future conduct of the Staff Council and Staff Association. The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes it cannot grant relief of this nature against an organisation (see Judgments 3835, consideration 6, 3506, consideration 18, and 2370, consideration 19). Accordingly, in this respect, the complaints should also be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 3506, 3835
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4241
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] seeks an order that her harasser(s) be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for misconduct. The request is rejected as the imposition of such a measure lies outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3318, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae; relief claimed; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Additionally, the complainant’s request that the FAO hold the officials responsible for the contested decision accountable for their breach of the rules and regulations and for acting in bad faith is rejected, as is his request that the Tribunal order the FAO to issue an official announcement to clear his reputation, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions of this kind (see, for example, Judgment 2636, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4039
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]t is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgments 3835, under 6, and 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 3835
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4038
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[I]t is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgments 3835, under 6, and 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 3835
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 3835
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 3506
120th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of some of her requests for the defrayal of medical expenses.
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[T]he complainant principally asks the Tribunal to order the Fund to instruct the insurance company to defray her hospital expenses for the disputed period. Such a claim is irreceivable, since it is firmly established by the case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue injunctions against organisations (see, for example, Judgments 2370, under 19, or 2541, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2541
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 3107
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The ITU must immediately lift the ban on the complainant’s presence at its installations. To this end, the Tribunal will make a formal declaration that the ban imposed in consequence of the decision of 16 March 2007 and maintained on 1 April 2009 and, again, on 19 May 2010, is of no force or effect and order the ITU to inform its Security and Safety Service of the terms of that declaration within seven days of the delivery of this judgment. Additionally and to ensure that there is no doubt concerning the maintenance of a ban on the complainant as a consequence of the events of 15 March 2007, the ITU will be ordered to provide a copy of this judgment to the heads of all its departments and divisions within seven days of its delivery. The Tribunal sees no need to order more extensive circulation of the judgment or to make further orders as sought by the complainant.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 53
Extract:
It should be noted that the complainant also sought an order relating to the appointment of the person appointed as Senior Legal Officer in ILO/AIDS and orders for investigation of possible reprisals, as well as potential violations of the principle of independence of the international civil service and of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Tribunal has no power to make such orders and the complainant’s claims in relation to these matters must be dismissed.
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 2952
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
It should [...] be noted that the Tribunal’s powers are confined to granting relief with respect to obligations. The Tribunal has no power to order renegotiation of existing obligations or the creation of new obligations, that being implicit in the orders which the complainant seeks with respect to the Staff Committee and its representatives.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
|
|
|
|
|
