Amicable settlement (848,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Amicable settlement
Total judgments found: 8

• Judgment 4751

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the ICC’s refusal to grant his request for several special post allowances.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  As a counterclaim, the ICC has asked the Tribunal “to award costs against the [c]omplainant, including the costs of filing submissions”, on the grounds that he “pointlessly and wilfully initiated and prolonged a dispute, with considerable consequences for the defendant [o]rganisation’s resources in terms of the related costs”, in particular by refusing the offer of an amicable settlement.
  While it follows from what has been said above that the complaint is unfounded, that does not mean that it can be considered as vexatious. Admittedly, in the present case, the organisation does not contend that the complaint is vexatious on account of its actual content but that the complainant did not have a legitimate reason for filing it since he was offered an amicable settlement. However, the Tribunal cannot take account of information concerning any negotiations – which are inherently confidential – conducted by the parties with a view to settling a dispute before it amicably (see Judgments 4457, consideration 2, and 3586, consideration 5). Hence it could not, in any event, issue orders on the basis of such information (see Judgment 4639, consideration 11).
  There are therefore no grounds for granting the ICC’s counterclaim.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4457, 4639
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; confidentiality; counterclaim;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4685

  
  136th Session, 2023
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejection of her requests concerning the effective date of her promotion and the within-grade salary increment.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The Tribunal shares the view of the Appeals Board that an amicable settlement is always advisable when possible.

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; settlement out of court;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4509

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renegotiate the content of a settlement agreement or to explain its content.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; complaint dismissed;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4457

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  In its further submissions, UNESCO has requested that the Tribunal disregard the last paragraph of the complainant’s rejoinder, in which his representative discloses the content of exchanges between the parties made in the context of an attempt to settle the dispute amicably.
  The complainant’s objection to the receivability of this request – in which he seeks to rely on the Tribunal’s case law set out, in particular, in Judgment 3648, consideration 5, according to which an organisation may not raise an objection to receivability in its surrejoinder where it could have done so in its reply – is unfounded. It is true that what was held with regard to the surrejoinder would likewise apply to such further submissions. However, the request in question cannot be regarded as an objection to receivability and is based, moreover, on new information provided by the complainant in his rejoinder. The request is therefore admissible, even though it would have been more natural for UNESCO to make it in the surrejoinder.
  As it is, the request is justified. As the Tribunal has already stated, since the confidentiality of amicable dispute settlement procedures must be preserved to increase the likelihood of their success, information relating to any negotiations conducted by the parties with a view to resolving a dispute referred to the Tribunal must not be disclosed in the proceedings before it (see Judgment 3586, consideration 5).
  The aforementioned paragraph of the rejoinder, which should indeed be disregarded, will not therefore be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3648
  

  Keywords:

  additional written submissions; amicable settlement; confidentiality; rejoinder;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4404

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of an amount wrongly deducted from her pay owing to double national taxation of her income, and compensation for the moral injury allegedly suffered as a result.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; settlement out of court;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Nevertheless, the Tribunal is aware that, although the dismissal of the complaint is necessary from a legal point of view, it will not put an end to the dispute between the complainant and the ACP Group. While the Tribunal notes that the ACP Group, in its written submissions, states it is prepared to resolve this dispute by means of an amicable settlement between the parties, the Tribunal observes that it does not, however, appear able by itself to offer the complainant an adequate response to her claims. On an entirely exceptional basis, the Tribunal will therefore set out below, purely for guidance, what would appear to be the most appropriate terms for such a settlement, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; settlement out of court;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4395

  
  131st Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded to him for the cessation of his shift work activities following a reorganisation.

  Considerations 3-4

  Extract:

  [The complainant] objected to the conditions proposed during the course of the settlement negotiations, which had ensued to mitigate the adverse financial impact on him of the termination of his shift work. The proposed conditions were that he should commit to keep the terms of the settlement confidential and not to challenge the final agreement by way of an internal appeal.
  The foregoing contentions are unfounded. In the first place, the subject conditions are usual in negotiated settlement agreements, and, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3867, consideration 5, it is entirely acceptable for an official to waive a right to appeal or to file a complaint in return for the benefits gained from a settlement (see also Judgment 4161, consideration 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4161
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; waiver of right of appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4223

  
  129th Session, 2020
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns UNESCO’s refusal to grant her claim for a lump sum in lieu of a special post allowance.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [P]ursuant to the aforementioned clause preventing any challenge or appeal by the complainant concerning the terms of her departure from UNESCO, this complaint is irreceivable, as was, for the same reason, the request for the disputed allowance submitted to the Organization (see, for a similar precedent, Judgment 1934, consideration 7, or Judgments 2368, consideration 7, 3486, consideration 5, 3867, consideration 16, and 4161, consideration 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1934, 2368, 3486, 3867, 4161
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; waiver of right of appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4161

  
  128th Session, 2019
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a settlement agreement.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  WIPO challenges the complaint’s receivability secondly on the grounds that, by signing the settlement agreement, the complainant waived any right to challenge it.
  However, since the complainant submits that he entered into that agreement under pressure which invalidated his consent, this question of receivability is, in this case, inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgments 3424, consideration 12, and 4072, consideration 4). Indeed, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the settlement agreement, which makes it necessary to consider the complainant’s pleas on the merits (for a similar approach, see Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424, 3610, 3750, 4072
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; cause of action; duress; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  In signing the agreement that was offered to him, the complainant waived his right to file new internal appeals, to pursue the appeals that he had initiated and to file complaints with the Tribunal. The case law acknowledges the validity and legitimacy of such agreements and considers that the resulting infringement of a complainant’s right to appeal is not unlawful (see Judgment 3867, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; waiver of right of appeal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; complaint dismissed; duress;
  

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  With regard to the complainant’s psychological state, it is not disputed that he was declared unfit for work and granted a disability benefit. Moreover, in the present proceedings the complainant has submitted several medical documents showing that he suffered from depression. However, that circumstance is not sufficient on its own to warrant a finding of a total lack of judgement (see Judgment 856, consideration 6). [...]
  First, the plethora of evidence attesting to the requests submitted and the action taken by the complainant with a view to obtaining an amicable settlement shows clearly that he did not lack judgement. Next, it should be noted that although the complainant put forward a proposal for a settlement on 18 April 2013 and re-submitted it on 27 August 2013 and 28 October 2014, the discussions started in earnest on 7 November 2014 when the complainant’s counsel asked the Organization to tell him what conditions it would accept. These negotiations lasted nearly three months, giving the complainant ample time for reflection in which he could have retracted his requests for a settlement. Lastly, from the start of these discussions until the signing of the agreement, the complainant was represented by a lawyer, whose role was to inform and assist him.
  The evidence provided by the complainant is not sufficient to cast doubt on his mental faculties given that, following negotiations which he himself initiated with the assistance of his counsel, he eventually accepted an offer that was distinctly advantageous from a financial point of view (for a similar case, see Judgment 2049, considerations 2 to 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 856, 2049
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; consent;
  

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The argument that the complainant needed to provide for his family must be rejected since he cannot be considered to have been in such dire necessity that his consent was not valid (see Judgment 3091, consideration 15).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3091
  

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; consent;