Judgment of the Tribunal (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,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Judgment of the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 144

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

• Judgment 2944

  
  109th Session, 2010
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 45

  Extract:

  "By not paying the sums owed to creditors for more than ten years and not complying with several court rulings ordering her to meet her obligations, the complainant, an international civil servant, plainly did not show due respect for local laws and institutions and for the public policy of the host State [...]."

  Keywords:

  debt; domestic law; judgment of the tribunal; member state; misconduct; municipal court; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2889

  
  108th Session, 2010
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 6 and 7

  Extract:

  "In accordance with the Tribunal's case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see, for instance, Judgment 1887, under 8). An exception must, however, be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
  

  Keywords:

  application for execution; date; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2861

  
  107th Session, 2009
  World Meteorological Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 91 and 93

  Extract:

  "[T]he complainant seeks damages for the publication in the [Organization] monthly information bulletin that she had been separated from service, in the English version, and dismissed from service ('démise de ses fonctions') in the French version. The publication of this information was contrary to the Secretary-General's instructions but, even if published negligently, [the Organization] is liable for the damage occasioned to the complainant's reputation and dignity. In this regard, it was said in Judgment 2720 that 'international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members' (see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371 and 2475). It was also pointed out in Judgment 2720 that that obligation extends to former staff members."
  "There will be an award of material and moral damages in relation to the publication [...]. However, account will be taken of the facts that the publication resulted from negligence, not malice, that it was speedily withdrawn and that the Secretary-General apologised to the complainant. In Judgment 2720 mentioned above the Tribunal held that, in the case of a continuing duty of an organisation to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the reputation or dignity of its staff members, the Tribunal may order performance of that duty, including by ordering the publication of material to restore a person's reputation. The complainant seeks an order of that kind in the present case. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that her honour and reputation will be sufficiently vindicated by this judgment and by an award of damages."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; damages; judgment of the tribunal; material injury; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2829

  
  107th Session, 2009
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 3 and 5

  Extract:

  The complainant filed an appeal with the WIPO Appeal Board challenging the decision to suspend him from duty. The Board held that the appeal was irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule, inasmuch as it had already issued an opinion on the measure of suspension and no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter. The Director General also deemed the appeal irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule.
  The Tribunal considers that "[t]he res judicata rule applies to decisions of judicial bodies, but not to opinions or recommendations issued by administrative bodies. The Director General was therefore obviously wrong to cite this rule as the basis for declaring the internal appeal irreceivable on the grounds that the Appeal Board had already given an opinion on the suspension and that no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter."
  [...]
  "The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury which he suffered owing to the fact that the merits of his internal appeal were not examined."

  Keywords:

  advisory opinion; allowance; compensation; executive head; general principle; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; res judicata;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2826

  
  107th Session, 2009
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "In the present case, the Secretary-General took a new decision to refer the question of the recognition of domestic partnership to the ITU Council and thereby executed Judgment 2643. There is no basis on which the Tribunal can require anything further, save on a receivable complaint with respect to that new decision."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2643
  

  Keywords:

  decision; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; limits; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2806

  
  106th Session, 2009
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  In Judgment 2575, the Tribunal annulled a decision to transfer the complainant from Vienna to Berlin. No action was taken to return him to Vienna. Instead, on 13 February 2007, the IOM informed him that he was to be transferred to Berlin with immediate effect. In Judgment 2691, the Tribunal declared that the decision of 13 February 2007 was "null and void ab initio".
  "Like all judicial bodies, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction and power to take action to ensure that its judgments are implemented. That power may be exercised in any proceedings where a question is raised with respect to the implementation of a judgment. Accordingly, an order will be made for a penalty to be paid in the event that [the complainant] is not posted to Vienna within 30 days."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2575, 2691
  

  Keywords:

  application for interpretation; application for review; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; res judicata; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2745

  
  105th Session, 2008
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  "It was said in Judgment 2524 that, although harassment and mobbing do not require bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent, 'behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question'. Thus, it was said in Judgment 2370 that conduct that 'had a valid managerial purpose or was the result of honest mistake, or even mere inefficiency' would not constitute harassment. However and as pointed out in Judgment 2524, 'an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken'."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524
  

  Keywords:

  bias; condition; conduct; consequence; definition; evidence; good faith; grounds; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of fact; organisation's duties; proportionality; qualifications; respect for dignity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2720

  
  105th Session, 2008
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  "The complainant [...] requests the Tribunal to order the ITU to send a new e-mail to all staff, after delivery of the present judgment, retracting the content of the e-mail circulated on 26 July 2006. As the circulation of such an e-mail does indeed appear to be the only way of ensuring that the present judgment fully serves the purpose of safeguarding the complainant's honour and reputation vis-à-vis the ITU staff, the Tribunal considers that, under the circumstances, this request should be granted."

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; judgment of the tribunal;
  

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "Of course the ITU, which had fulfilled its obligation to execute Judgment 2540, had every right to circulate comments that were critical of that judicial ruling [...]. In so doing, however, the Union was not entitled [...] to challenge the findings of fact made in that judgment, which had res judicata authority; nor was it entitled, above all, to harm the complainant's honour and reputation by defamatory statements."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
  

  Keywords:

  execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; respect for dignity;
  

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  "[W]here a judgment has been rendered against an international organisation in a dispute with one of its staff members, the circulation after delivery of the said judgment of a message defaming the complainant constitutes a very serious breach of the obligations incumbent on the organisation in its relations with its staff members. Such conduct disregards not only the [...] duty to respect the staff member's dignity and reputation but also - and this is an even more serious matter - the duty to safeguard the free exercise of his right to file a complaint with the Tribunal, which implies, inter alia, that the success of such a complaint shall not entail punitive or retaliatory measures against him."

  Keywords:

  breach; complaint; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right of appeal; safeguard;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2700

  
  104th Session, 2008
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal [...] draws attention to the fact that, irrespective of the circumstances, an official is always entitled to have his case judged in proper, transparent and fair proceedings which comply with the general principles of law."

  Keywords:

  due process; equity; formal requirements; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff member's interest;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2693

  
  104th Session, 2008
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal's judgments have the authority of res judicata. They will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. These grounds include the discovery of a new fact. A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; definition; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; limits; misconduct; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2657

  
  103rd Session, 2007
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post but the Tribunal considers that persons who have applied for a post in an international organisation and who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. The complainant asks that the Organisation be ordered to waive its immunity to enable him to bring proceedings before a German court. "[T]he Tribunal [recalls that it] has no authority to order the EPO to waive its immunity (see Judgment 933, under 6). It notes, however, that the present judgment creates a legal vacuum and considers it highly desirable that the Organisation should seek a solution affording the complainant access to a court, either by waiving its immunity or by submitting the dispute to arbitration."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 933
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; arbitration; candidate; claim; competence of tribunal; condition; grounds; handicapped person; judgment of the tribunal; medical examination; medical fitness; municipal court; open competition; organisation; post; refusal; safeguard; waiver of immunity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2643

  
  103rd Session, 2007
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590
  

  Keywords:

  applicable law; case law; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2586

  
  102nd Session, 2007
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "[A]s pointed out in Judgment 442, 'the allegedly libellous nature of a judgment affords no grounds for reviewing it'."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
  

  Keywords:

  application for review; case law; iloat; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2483

  
  100th Session, 2006
  World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The purpose of [an] application [for interpretation] cannot be to shed light on grounds of a ruling which are alleged to be unclear or contradictory. [The application for interpretation] must concern only the decision itself. It may, however, additionally concern the grounds of the ruling if the decision refers to them explicitly, in which case they must be seen as part of the latter."

  Keywords:

  application for interpretation; definition; grounds; judgment of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2418

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The Appeals Committee considered that the promotion procedure carried out under the vacancy notice was legally flawed and it unanimously recommended that the three contested appointments be revoked and that the application procedure be re-run. The President of the Office refused to re-run the procedure as recommended by the Committee. The Tribunal, having found that the challenged decision was irregular, in breach of the principle of equal treatment and that the Administration's attitude showed a distinct lack of even-handedness, awards punitive damages in the sum of 2,500 euros to each complainant.

  Keywords:

  bias; breach; decision; equal treatment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; punitive damages;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2381

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[I]t is for complainants to put forward specific arguments in support of their complaints, concisely and precisely, so that the Tribunal may rule on their claims in full knowledge of the facts."

  Keywords:

  claim; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2327

  
  97th Session, 2004
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "Internal debates and discussions in the [executive body of an international organisation] are irrelevant to [the organisation's] obligation faithfully and promptly to execute the Tribunal's judgments."

  Keywords:

  application for execution; effect; execution of judgment; executive body; judgment of the tribunal; suspensory effects; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2316

  
  96th Session, 2004
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."

  Keywords:

  complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. The ITU asserts that the complaint is inadmissible because in Judgment 2170 the Tribunal stated that those pleas were dismissed. "Judgment 2170 was concerned with the complainant's entitlement to her step VIII salary increment, her pleas regarding entitlement to salary increment for step [...] X being dismissed on the basis that they were not and could not be the subject of her first complaint. That being so, there was no final and binding decision on her present claim either expressly or as a necessary step to the decision that she was then entitled to a step VIII increment. Accordingly, the complaint is not barred by res judicata."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
  

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; claim; complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general principle; grounds; iloat; increase; increment; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; res judicata; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2315

  
  96th Session, 2004
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 32

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal may, when setting aside a flawed decision not to renew a contract, order renewal for an appropriate term, as was done in Judgments 1298 and 1633. But it does so only if that is clearly the fair course to take. That was the situation in Judgment 1633 where, in practical terms, the question for decision was not whether a contract should be renewed but whether it should be renewed for two or for five years."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1298, 1633
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; condition; contract; decision; equity; flaw; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; non-renewal of contract; period; settlement out of court;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2304

  
  96th Session, 2004
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
  

  Keywords:

  application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >