|
|
 |
|
|
Settlement out of court (98,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Settlement out of court
Total judgments found: 59
1, 2, 3 | next >
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 4665
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was reclassified retrospectively, claims compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered and requests that his resignation be redefined as a dismissal.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant further seeks compensation for the moral injury he considers he has suffered [...]. He substantiates the existence of this injury with particular reference to the Organization’s [...] bad faith during the negotiations seeking to find an amicable resolution to the dispute.
On this last point, the Tribunal considers that it is not required to take into consideration discussions of this kind (see, in this respect, Judgment 4457, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4457
Keywords:
collective bargaining; competence of tribunal; moral injury; settlement out of court;
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 4091
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint dismissed; harassment; settlement out of court;
Judgment 4080
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal is simply astonished that the complainant was invited to sign two proposals for a settlement requiring him to pay sums of money in exchange for the Organisation waiving disciplinary action against him and providing him with protection against any possible criminal action. Such a conduct is inadmissible.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; settlement out of court;
Judgment 4043
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The preceding analysis should not be viewed as tacit acceptance by the Tribunal that litigation by members of staff against the organisation that employs them is desirable or should be promoted. If grievances can be resolved other than by litigation involving lawyers, that is very much to be preferred (see, for example, the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3900, consideration 11, and the cases referred to therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3900
Keywords:
settlement out of court;
Judgment 3900
125th Session, 2018
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract owing to the closure of the CDE and the terms and conditions of that termination.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It must first be emphasised that a steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal encourages the settlement of disputes by agreement (see Judgments 1847, under 11, 1924, under 10, 2091, under 13, and 2220, under 6). As recently stated in Judgment 3731, under 7, “[i]t is now almost universally recognised that the settlement of legal disputes is, in many cases, a preferable outcome than the full ventilation of legal and factual issues in contested litigation to be resolved by the adjudication of a court of justice. Some cases, by their very nature, will take that path. However, many others are more appropriately resolved by discussion and agreement. The parties control the terms of an agreed outcome even if, as is almost always the case, it involves some reciprocated compromise. There appears to be a regrettable attitude amongst some parties before the Tribunal, both individual complainants and defendant organisations alike, not to entertain the possibility of settlement by agreement. It should be otherwise.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1847, 1924, 2091, 2220, 3731
Keywords:
settlement out of court;
Judgment 3867
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision not to conduct an inquiry into his allegations of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; settlement out of court;
Considerations 5 and 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the clauses contravene the general principles of law because they have the effect of depriving him of the right to bring a complaint of harassment or abuse of power. However, in the context of a settlement, as is the case here, the infringement of an official’s right to appeal or file a complaint is not unlawful. On the contrary, it is entirely acceptable for an official to waive such rights in return for the benefits gained from the settlement. This is, furthermore, common practice in the context of separation agreements, as here.
In this respect, the complainant’s reliance on Judgment 2715, in which the Tribunal emphasised that an international organisation had acted unlawfully in making payment of a sum due to an official contingent on his relinquishing all means of appeal, is misplaced. In that case, pressure was improperly brought to bear on the official in return for nothing but the organisation’s honouring of its own duties. That situation bears no comparison with the case of a clause in a settlement agreement providing for an official to receive benefits negotiated with him.
[T]he fact that the agreement was concluded for the purpose of determining the conditions of the complainant’s separation from service did not legally prevent it from containing, as part of the settlement between the parties, stipulations concerning other aspects of the relations between them.
In this connection, the Tribunal further observes that in this case it is by no means inappropriate that the separation agreement should have the effect of preventing an inquiry into the facts alleged in the complaints [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715
Keywords:
settlement out of court;
Judgment 3827
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her the lump sum paid to servants whose application to resign is accepted.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant points out that [...] the Organisation had proposed an amicable settlement of the dispute. She regards this proposal as acknowledgement of the unlawful nature of the decision [...].
This submission is misconceived. The Organisation’s proposal to resolve the dispute by means of a settlement, which did not in itself imply any admission of liability, could very well have been prompted by a wish to avoid the trouble of pursuing litigation with an employee who had retired.
Keywords:
settlement out of court;
Judgment 3731
123rd Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3235.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he observations of the Tribunal about settlement discussions were no more than words of encouragement. They were not intended to create a legal obligation on the OPCW to negotiate or negotiate in a particular way. That said, the Tribunal’s observations were made in the expectation that they would be given earnest and serious consideration. It is now almost universally recognised that the settlement of legal disputes is, in many cases, a preferable outcome than the full ventilation of legal and factual issues in contested litigation to be resolved by the adjudication of a court of justice. Some cases, by their very nature, will take that path. However, many others are more appropriately resolved by discussion and agreement. The parties control the terms of an agreed outcome even if, as is almost always the case, it involves some reciprocated compromise. There appears to be a regrettable attitude amongst some parties before the Tribunal, both individual complainants and defendant organisations alike, not to entertain the possibility of settlement by agreement. It should be otherwise.
Keywords:
settlement out of court;
Judgment 3245
116th Session, 2014
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered the complaint irreceivable for non-exhaustion of internal remedies.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3180
114th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from a salary adjustment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the amount of money claimed may be derisory does not prevent the claim from being receivable. [I]f the [Organisation] was of the opinion that the amount at stake in this dispute was derisory, it ought to have tried to put an end to it by reaching an amicable settlement."
Keywords:
amount; claim; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3067
112th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"[T]he very purpose of a conciliation procedure, which is to endeavour to resolve a dispute between the parties amicably, implies that the conciliator may have to take account of considerations of fairness or advisability. In this respect, such a procedure is fundamentally different from proceedings before the Tribunal, whose task is plainly not to explore possible settlements between the parties and which essentially gives a ruling in law."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; difference; equity; purpose; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3038
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
Failure of the parties to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owed to the complainant for the termination of his appointment following a flawed reassignment procedure.
"The Tribunal finds that the inordinate delay on the part of the Organization, and its conduct during the negotiations, do not reflect the duty that is incumbent on an organisation to negotiate in good faith, or the care it should take in the implementation of a decision. These matters warrant an award of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; conduct; delay; duty of care; good faith; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; settlement out of court;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"As the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a negotiated settlement, remitting the matter to [the Organization] to resolve the matter of compensation would be futile and would result in further unwarranted delay in the resolution of the dispute. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will itself determine the relief to which the complainant is entitled [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; delay; order; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2940
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2888
108th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already had occasion to rule that it has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to a contract concluded with an independent contractor or collaborator which contains [...] an arbitration clause (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), and 2688, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 2688
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; definition; external collaborator; ratione personae; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2757
105th Session, 2008
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t is a fundamental aspect of due process that a person should not take a decision in a matter in which he or she has a personal interest. [However, in] some circumstances, necessity will direct that a decision be taken by a person with a direct personal interest in the outcome."
Keywords:
bias; decision; due process; exception; organisation's interest; safeguard; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
"Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
[T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; judicial review; language; misuse of authority; official; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2742
105th Session, 2008
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"General principle dictates that a person cannot litigate the same issue in separate proceedings, much less in concurrent proceedings."
Keywords:
difference; general principle; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; settlement out of court;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
