Precedent (687,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Precedent
Total judgments found: 8

• Judgment 4696

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover supposed overpayments made to him by way of expatriation allowance.

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  In Judgment 4469, consideration 4, the Tribunal has already stated that Article 87 of Eurocontrol’s Staff Regulations constitutes an exception to the general principle of law that any sum paid in error may normally be recovered subject to the rules on time limits. Where a Eurocontrol staff member receives an undue payment, the Tribunal recalled in that judgment that recovery is only possible if one of the two conditions specified in Article 87 is met, namely that the official concerned was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the overpayment was patently obvious.
  With regard to this second condition, which is the only one relevant to the present case, in the aforementioned Judgment 4469, this time in consideration 6, the Tribunal pointed out that it had already ruled on the interpretation to be given to the condition that requires the contested overpayment to be “patently such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it”. In Judgment 3201, consideration 14, the Tribunal stated that this condition is regarded as being met if “the mistake affecting the amount of the [sums paid] was sufficiently obvious that, even without accurately gauging its significance and determining its causes, it could not have reasonably escaped the notice of a [...] staff member exercising ordinary diligence in the management of his personal affairs”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3201, 4469
  

  Keywords:

  precedent; recovery of overpayment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4498

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal observes that Judgment 3876 has no “res judicata” authority in the present case, since the force and effect of “res judicata” can only be attributed to a judgment rendered between the same parties, and this is not the case here. The applicable approach is stare decisis.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876
  

  Keywords:

  precedent; res judicata; stare decisis;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4479

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the changes made with respect to their salary resulting from the decision of the Director-General to implement the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; icsc decision; precedent; salary;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  A central argument is that the elimination of the distinction between staff who were single and those with dependents involved the breach of an acquired right. This argument has been considered in other proceedings involving another organisation. It was rejected by the Tribunal (see Judgment 4381). There was, in this respect, no material difference between the circumstances of the complainant in the earlier proceedings and the circumstances of the complainants in these, nor any material difference in the arguments advanced and considered. Accordingly, the Tribunal should, for reasons of consistency, adopt and apply the analysis and conclusion in Judgment 4381.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4381
  

  Keywords:

  precedent;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4469

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which were allegedly unduly paid to him.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The central issue in the dispute is therefore whether, as Eurocontrol argues with reference to the alternative condition laid down in the aforementioned Article 87, the fact of the contested overpayment was “patently such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it”.
  In this respect, it should be noted that the Tribunal, which has already ruled on the interpretation of this condition, held on that occasion that the condition should be regarded as having been satisfied if “the mistake affecting the amount of the [sums paid] was sufficiently obvious that, even without accurately gauging its significance and determining its causes, it could not have reasonably escaped the notice of a [...] staff member exercising ordinary diligence in the management of his personal affairs” (see Judgment 3201, consideration 14, in fine). The parties’ arguments in the present case will also be examined on the basis of this interpretation. Several elements in the file lead the Tribunal to consider that the condition in question was not satisfied in this case.

  Keywords:

  flaw; precedent; recovery of overpayment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4449

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [B]y quoting Judgment 3314, consideration 25, concerning WHO, the complainant alleges that the delay to process the harassment complaint amounted itself to continued harassment. Judgment 3314, consideration 25, reads as follows: “In summary, the Organization breached Staff Rule 1230.3.3, the complainant’s contract and its duty to provide her with a congenial working environment. In effect, the Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment.” In that case, it was the organization’s failure in its duty to provide a congenial harassment-free workplace that had caused the complainant a further harassment. In the present case, the complainant separated from WHO shortly after filing her harassment complaint. Her situation is therefore not comparable to that of the complainant in the case leading to Judgment 3314. Also, there is no evidence to prove that actions of the Administration in the internal procedures constituted harassment.

  Keywords:

  delay in internal procedure; harassment; precedent;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4419

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4330

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the President’s new final decision to reject his appeal, arguing that the whole procedure was unlawful.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; precedent; res judicata; summary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3450

  
  119th Session, 2015
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal made a judicial determination of what the provision meant and its decision was not mere guidance. The ILO has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as the final and judicial arbiter of employee grievances. The only reservation in the Tribunal’s Statute concerns the Tribunal’s jurisdiction which is reviewable by the International Court of Justice. This submission to jurisdiction binds the organisation, its officials and internal organs.
  Judgment 2220 discusses, albeit briefly, the rule of stare decisis. It is to the effect that as a matter of judicial practice or of comity, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that “the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who are 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. Another element of the stare decisis rule entrenched in many legal systems is that courts lower in the judicial hierarchy are obliged to follow legal principles (including the interpretation of documents) established by appellate courts higher in the judicial hierarchy. This principle does not exist to create the appearance of deference to more senior members of the judiciary. Rather it serves a much more fundamental and important purpose of creating consistency and predictability in a legal system. Even though a judge or judges lower in the judicial hierarchy may believe that a principle established or an interpretation given by judges in an appellate court higher in the judicial hierarchy is wrong or perhaps even patently wrong, they are obliged to, and do, apply the principle or interpretation. Parties should be able to make informed decisions about their legal rights and about whether they should commence or defend legal proceedings. Thus it is important for the law to be stable, predictable and certain.
  It is for this reason that the Tribunal has adopted the rule of stare decisis in relation to its own decision making. Internal appeal organs and senior decision-making officials are, of course, neither courts nor judges. However, it is for the same reasons discussed above that internal organs should follow and apply principles established by the Tribunal and adopt and apply interpretations by the Tribunal of normative legal documents applicable to the staff of the organisation. That is necessary in order to create a stable, predictable and certain legal system concerning the rights and obligations of both staff and organisations. If organisations and their internal organs feel unconstrained by decisions of the Tribunal, the result is likely to be legal instability and uncertainty. Also, as a practical matter, if a different position is adopted by the organisation or its internal organs and the Tribunal reverses the decision embodying that different approach, significant costs, both financial and in resources, are likely to have been expended in defending that different approach for no apparent good purpose. Organisations and their internal organs should follow the interpretation of normative legal documents decided by the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2220
  

  Keywords:

  precedent; stare decisis;