Exception (113,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Exception
Total judgments found: 212
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 1455
79th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Vide Judgment 532, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; complaint; exception; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1404
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
In view of the exceptional circumstances in the country where the Appeals Board was to meet - political upheaval and riots - "the delay in the Board's handling of [the] appeal was not wholly due to any shortcomings of its own and in any event did not warrant direct referral to the Headquarters Board."
Keywords:
delay; exception; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal must enforce the law within the full ambit of the competence its Statute vests in it. For that purpose it will apply any material rule of law, be it international or administrative or labour law or any other body of law. The only sort it will not apply is national law, save where there is express renvoi thereto in the Staff Regulations or contract of employment: see Judgment 1311 [...], under 15."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1311
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; exception; iloat statute; insurance benefits; international civil service principles; international instrument; law of contract; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1353
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 1309.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1351
77th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"A decision not to renew a fixed-term contract does not interfere with any contractual right but merely disappoints expectation of further employment. The complainant is not entitled to the exceptional relief of reinstatement but only to an award of damages".
Keywords:
compensation; contract; damages; decision; exception; fixed-term; legitimate expectation; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Judgment 1344
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is true that Article VII(1) of the Statute provides that a complaint will not be receivable unless the complainant has exhausted such other means of resisting the decision as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations. But it is plain from the case law that the Tribunal construes that article to mean that when a complainant has done all that is required of him to get a final decision, yet the proceedings appear unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time, he may appeal directly to the Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 451, 499
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1324
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
See Judgment 525, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 525
Keywords:
abuse of power; amendment to the rules; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; formal flaw; home; home leave; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;
Judgment 1256
75th Session, 1993
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asked the Director-General to review his decision to reject his application for a vacant post after the expiry of the one month delay for filing of an internal appeal. He wants the Tribunal to acknowledge the exceptional character of his case as justifying an extension of the normally applicable time limit. "According to precedent a complainant may not be deemed to have exhausted the means of redress at his disposal within the organisation unless he has followed the prescribed internal procedure for appeal and in particular observed the time limits. So if his internal appeal was out of time his complaint to this Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII(1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3
Keywords:
case law; complaint; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
To escape the time bar the complainant relies on UPU Staff Rule 111.3.4, which allows the Joint Appeals Committee to waive the time limit in exceptional circumstances. "As the Union observes, the time limit which the Committee may waive is not the one in 111.3.1 - the one month for submitting a request for review to the Director-General - but only the one for appeal to the Committee against the decision rejecting such request." The complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3
Keywords:
case law; complaint; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1232
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was sentenced to imprisonment in his country of origin. After his release, however, he was not allowed to go abroad. after being entitled to do so, he sent a letter to the Director-General regarding the organization's acceptance of his application for early retirement, which he had worded under duress, when he was still compelled to remain in his country. Receiving no answer and about one year after leaving the country, he challenged the rejection he inferred from the Director-General's silence. The complainant went to the Appeals Board, but the Director-General rejected its recommendation on the grounds that the appeal was irreceivable, being out of time. The Tribunal considers that "the delay was understandable in the unusual circumstances of [the] case [...] the conclusion is that he was not out of time."
Keywords:
delay; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 1230
74th Session, 1993
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The defendant maintains that the complainant did not meet the two-month time limit for lodging appeals and failed to exhaust the internal means of redress. The Committee was of the view that, in this case, exceptional circumstances warranted waiving the time limit and allowing the appeal. The defendant contends that the Committee's decision was not binding on the Agency. "Only where the Committee's appraisal of the circumstances is flagrantly wrong or based on plainly mistaken facts may the Director General disregard it, and even then his decision will be subject to review by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
condition; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1143
72nd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The complainant applied for extension of the age limit on the grounds that without it her pension would be paltry and that her continued service would be in the organization's interest. The Director General rejected her request, relying on Judgment 358 [...], which he said precluded his acting in the exclusive interests of the staff member, and on the fact that Staff Regulation 9.8 prevented him from making an exception to the age-limit rule to take account of an official's financial situation. The Tribunal holds that "in stating his decision in those terms the Director General mistook the scope of his discretion and the ratio of Judgment 358: he may not refuse to exercise his discretion just because he is being asked to take a staff member's financial situation into account." Moreover, her performance reports were good. "The Director General erred in law because his decision was not in accordance with Regulation 9.8(a). He could have taken into account the complainant's financial situation provided that that was not the exclusive factor and that the interests of the Organization were also taken into account."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 9.8
ILOAT Judgment(s): 358
Keywords:
age limit; exception; organisation's interest; pension; retirement;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Regulation 9.8 confers on the Director General discretion to extend the age limit in individual cases if he considers that to be in the organization's interests. The determination of what the organization's interests are being peculiarly within the Director General's discretion, the Tribunal has a limited power of review and will interfere with his decision only if it was taken without authority or [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 9.8
Keywords:
age limit; discretion; exception; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review; organisation's interest; retirement;
Judgment 1132
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that time limits in rules on internal appeals must be strictly adhered to. The complainant did not comply with the requirements of the Service Regulations. Nor can he show any breach of good faith on the organisation's part. His complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
exception; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1130
71st Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The rule against retroactivity, though a general principle of law, is not absolute. One qualification is, as indeed the complainants acknowledge, that the retroactive decision will be admissible in law where the effect of it is favourable to the staff member it applies to. Another qualification is that the rule will not hold where the retroactive decision supersedes an earlier one which, at the time at which it was taken, was merely provisional and so was to hold good only until replaced by a final decision."
Keywords:
exception; general principle; non-retroactivity; provisional decision;
Judgment 1122
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants want the Tribunal to set aside all the decisions that applied the "Eurocontrol reduction" to their salaries after 12 November 1987. To avoid the time bar, they rely on the emergence of a new fact, namely Judgment 1012, which quashed the decision to lower pay by 0.7 per cent before that date. "That judgment is final and has the authority of res judicata, including the ruling in it that certain claims are irreceivable. On no account may it be treated as a new fact setting off a new time limit for filing a complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1012
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; exception; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; res judicata; salary; time bar;
Judgment 1121
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Eurocontrol did not apply a restraining measure to rises in the pay of certain officials. bBut the plea of breach of equal treatment fails because the exception was made to safeguard those officials' minimum livelihood.
Keywords:
adjustment; equal treatment; exception; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1120
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
See Judgment 1121, consideration 6.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1121
Keywords:
adjustment; equal treatment; exception; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1119
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
See Judgment 1121, consideration 6.
Keywords:
adjustment; equal treatment; exception; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Time limits are a matter of objective fact. "If that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of the time bar. An exception might be allowed only if the organization had acted in bad faith and misled the official. But in this case the organization did not."
Keywords:
complaint; exception; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1101
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainants are challenging a general decision. They "cannot yet show any cause of action and their complaints must fail because they are irreceivable. [...] Since, however, before altering its stand the organisation directly encouraged them to file the present complaints, it is only reasonable that it should bear the costs".
Keywords:
cause of action; costs; exception; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
