Procedure before the Tribunal (1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 744, 754, 803, 882, 52, 53, 54, 56, 55, 71, 73, 74, 673, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 643, 682, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 93, 534, 535, 659, 655, 704, 705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 760, 889, 758, 759, 70, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749, 83, 935, 936, 972, 85, 25, 779, 780, 100, 102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948, 120, 22, 23, 121, 122, 123, 690, 871, 124, 125, 126, 842, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 127, 133, 134, 745, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 672, 825, 826, 140, 315, 644, 650, 676, 689, 692, 693, 665, 740, 886, 914, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 158, 166, 167, 633, 795, 796, 707, 797, 798, 799, 168, 792, 169, 170, 171, 172, 674, 800, 117, 173, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 174, 793, 762, 593, 888, 761, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 21, 794, 801, 884, 916, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Procedure before the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 191
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 3162
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; written rule;
Judgment 3126
113th Session, 2012
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
"This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 3102
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
administrative delay; career; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; misconduct; official; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; right;
Judgment 3092
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It must [...] be observed that, by any standards, a delay of 42 months in completing the processing of a compensation claim [...] is unreasonable."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3075
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"An organisation has the duty to follow its own Rules, and to do its best to ensure the proper functioning of its internal appeal system. The application of time limits in the internal appeal procedure is a safeguard for a proper functioning of the system. The internal appeal procedure is indeed an important step in the remedying of disputes given that an appeal body's competence is broader than that of the Tribunal. Therefore, just as staff members have the duty to pursue their appeals with due diligence, an organisation has the duty to respect the time limits and cannot rely on staff members to monitor the procedures. The possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal is to be considered a further safeguard for a proper functioning of an internal appeal system and not a fast track for settling a dispute between the parties through a judgment from the Tribunal. Indeed, an internal appeal system which is not fully functional affects the right of defence."
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17- 18
Extract:
The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; vacancy;
Judgment 2994
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Amendment of the rules concerning the health insurance coverage of spouses gainfully employed outside the Office.
"[I]n the absence of a specified procedure or some other provision indicating to the contrary, an internal appeals body necessarily has power to determine what procedure should be followed when multiple appeals are filed with respect to the same issue."
Keywords:
competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2983
110th Session, 2011
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"An international organisation's duty to protect a staff representative is [...] not confined to defending the person concerned in the event that legal proceedings are instituted against him/her. It may include, for example, the duty to assist the staff representative in any legal steps that this person might wish to take in his/her own defence against threats, insults or defamation."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; staff representative;
Judgment 2957
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contestation of a performance appraisal report.
"[T]he Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Committee has the authority to recommend that a case be sent back for review or, in an appropriate case, to recommend a precise remedy."
Keywords:
competence; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;
Judgment 2922
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he procedure leading to titularisation was never undertaken in the case of the complainant. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the complainant did not have the status of an established official within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the [ILO] Staff Regulations. It follows that she is not justified in claiming that there has been a violation of the formal and procedural rules applicable to the termination of the appointment of an established official [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 2.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations
Keywords:
breach; formal flaw; formal requirements; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; titularization; written rule;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"The various paths to promotion within an international organisation such as the EPO are regulated by complex rules with which the staff cannot be assumed to be fully conversant and it is plainly up to the Organisation to ensure that the decisions which it takes in this respect are lawful."
Keywords:
organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2900
108th Session, 2010
European Telecommunications Satellite Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is [...] for the Tribunal to determine whether it is competent to hear a dispute, and the Tribunal is by no means bound in this respect by the opinions expressed by the parties in the course of the proceedings."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; independence; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
"At the material time, the Centre had not formally adopted a procedure for the selection of candidates for vacant posts; however, it had developed a set of Guidelines."
"Although the Guidelines do not have the force of formally adopted regulations or rules, they are intended to foster a transparent selection procedure in which candidates are fairly evaluated against selection criteria. The process in the present case [...] undermines the credibility of the procedure and is an affront to the dignity of the complainant, who submitted his candidature in good faith and with the expectation that it would be considered in accordance with the procedure found in the Guidelines."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 2393
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; difference; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2769
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As it cannot be confirmed but for the flaw in the selection process that the complainant would have been appointed to the post of Section Head, this aspect of the claim for material damages is rejected. The complainant, however, lost a valuable opportunity to be properly considered for the said post."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; due process; injury; material damages; material injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2762
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 26-27
Extract:
The complainant challenges the EPO's decision to recruit the spouse of the former President of the Office. "The Organisation is correct in stating that the Service Regulations do not preclude the recruitment of the spouses of staff members. Nor does there appear to be any regulatory bar to the recruitment of the spouses, friends, or close associates of the highest ranking officials in the Organisation. Whether this type of recruitment ought to be permitted is not for the Tribunal to decide but is a question of policy for each organisation to answer.
However, where an organisation permits such recruitment, then it is imperative that special procedures be put in place to ensure the integrity and transparency of the selection process. Where such procedures have not been put in place, the presumptions of regularity and bona fides will not apply. In the absence of the operation of these presumptions, it will take very little to establish improper motive or bad faith."
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; competition; executive head; family relationship; good faith; motivation; presumption; procedure before the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The intention with which a statement is made is not necessarily determinative of the question whether a statement that is wholly irrelevant is also one that can serve no proper purpose." The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had stated that, by reason of the time he had spent providing legal assistance to staff members, the complainant's work as an examiner had been less satisfactory than it should have been. "That was defamatory. It was also inconsistent with the duty of the EPO to respect the complainant's dignity. In the context of the other comments that were within the limits of the privilege that attaches to proceedings before the Tribunal, it carried the threat of possible administrative consequences for the complainant's employment. Such a remark can serve no proper purpose. Accordingly, it was not privileged and the complainant is entitled to seek relief with respect to it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514
Keywords:
breach; compensation; consequence; counsel; iloat; intention of parties; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; security of tenure; staff representative;
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;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A] claim may be made and pursued against an organisation if its conduct in proceedings before an internal appeals body or this Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process or a perversion of the right of reply."
Keywords:
abuse of power; conduct; iloat; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; right;
Judgment 2744
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the present case, over three years have elapsed between the filing of the complainant's appeal and the issuing of the Internal Appeals Committee's opinion. Moreover, two and a half years have elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO's position paper before the Committee, which constitutes an excessive delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to 1,000 euros in moral damages."
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; period; procedure before the tribunal; publication; report; right;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
