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 2236
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The right to intervene in a complaint filed before the Tribunal is available to persons who wish to claim the benefit of the judgment rendered on that complaint, without having themselves exhausted the remedies available to them. since the intervener has availed himself of the internal remedies and filed a complaint before the Tribunal on which judgment is delivered this day, his application to intervene is, therefore, irreceivable."
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; effect; intention of parties; internal appeal; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; right; status of complainant;
Judgment 2222
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"The decisive factor behind the request for the complainant's diplomatic immunity to be waived [...] was not brought to the complainant's knowledge. That might have given him a chance to identify his accusers and, if need be, armed with that knowledge, to explain to his hierarchical superiors the reasons for the serious charges brought against him, before the decision was taken to waive his diplomatic immunity [...] by virtue of the right to information recognised by the tribunal's case law, particularly Judgment 1756, the organization, which held information that was so important to the complainant, had an obligation to bring it to his knowledge. It may be concluded from the above that the organization violated the complainant's right to be informed and injured his dignity and reputation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; consequence; decision; duty to inform; elements; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; waiver of immunity;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Referring to the Tribunal's case law, in particular Judgments 70 and 1543, the defendant submits that the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, does not extend to disputes regarding the Director-General's discretion to waive diplomatic immunity. It is worth noting that the complainant does not in fact [...] challenge the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity in itself. He rather challenges the circumstances in which that decision was taken, which in his view violated his contractual rights or those arising from the general principles of law which should be observed by international organisations. Since the case law referred to by the defendant does not apply, the Tribunal is of the view that only a consideration of the merits of the case may show whether the complainant's allegations are well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70, 1543
Keywords:
breach; case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; general principle; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right; terms of appointment; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. "Sound judicial policy requires that the Tribunal encourage parties to settle their disputes after as well as before judgment. That cannot happen if persons, like the complainant, who did not participate in a case, even though he might have done so, can interfere after the fact and prevent such settlement."
Keywords:
complainant; execution of judgment; general principle; iloat; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; request by a party; right; settlement out of court; status of complainant;
Judgment 2214
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(B) and (C)
Extract:
The complainant asked for the payment of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 of the EPO's Service Regulations. The Tribunal gave "a definition of permanent or continuous residence". While this requires actual long-term presence in the country concerned, it does not necessarily exclude another residence. In judgment 1099 the Tribunal held that in order to establish whether the complainant met the condition of 'continuous residence' in the country of his duty station for at least three years prior to being recruited by the Office, it was necessary to determine whether there were "objective and factual links with that country". It added that: "what matters is that the complainant had to live, and did live [in that country]". It was not important to know whether the complainant had paid taxes there or whether, at the same time, he kept a home address at his former place of residence (see Judgment 1099, under 8). The status of the residence is not relevant either (see Judgment 1150). It is clear from the case law when residence must be deemed to have been interrupted, within the meaning of Article 72 of the Service Regulations. It is not sufficient for the person concerned to have stopped living in a particular country; he must in addition have intended to leave the country for some length of time."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1099, 1150
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; case law; condition; definition; duty station; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; non-resident allowance; period; place of origin; provision; request by a party; residence; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2189
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant has [...] requested that the Tribunal act to [...] prevent public access to its judgments concerning her. The Tribunal cannot do this since its judgments are necessarily public, but it has recently adopted a practice of not mentioning the names of individuals so that such names are not available as a matter of course to any person reading the Tribunal's judgments on the internet. Cases that have already been published have passed into the public domain and are of course beyond recall."
Keywords:
complainant; decision; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; publication of judgment; request by a party;
Judgment 2185
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal gave the organisation the choice between reinstating the complainant or paying her a compensation. "The organization clearly chose not to reinstate the complainant. Consequently, the complainant's claim for reinstatement is irreceivable. It should also be noted that since [the organization] applied the second option of [that] judgment [...] to the complainant, she cannot seek to benefit from the first option as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1553
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; claim; decision; enforcement; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reinstatement;
Judgment 2178
94th Session, 2003
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal ordered that he be compensated because he had been wrongfully terminated. In his application for review of that judgment "the complainant seeks compensation in respect of the loss of the tax immunities he enjoyed by virtue of the agreement between the [...] authorities [of the host country] and the [organisation]. Since the complainant has not been reinstated in his post, he is no longer entitled to those immunities. Nor is he entitled to compensation for the loss thereof: the tax regime governing the exemptions he may claim is solely a matter for the competent authorities of the host state, and the [organisation] cannot be held liable for direct or indirect taxes owed by the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; domestic law; headquarters agreement; judgment of the tribunal; privileges and immunities; reconstruction of career; reinstatement; request by a party; tax;
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant filed an application for execution less than two months after the judgment on his first complaint was delivered. "The haste with which he came to the Tribunal is all the more regrettable for the fact that the discussions taking place between the parties could have enabled them, if not to reach an agreement, then at least to clarify certain aspects of the case which remain uncertain [...]. The Federation raises the question of whether under these circumstances the application for execution is receivable. However, the Tribunal's case law shows a constant line of precedent on this issue: any serious difficulty concerning the execution of a judgment can validly be brought before the Tribunal by means of an application for execution. In the present case, it is to be regretted that the difficulties could not be overcome by the parties through discussion in good faith, but the Federation may not object to the receivability of the complainant's application."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; condition; execution of judgment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2151
93rd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In the Tribunal's view, the fact that [...] two staff members [...] filed no internal appeal does not prevent them from applying to intervene (see Judgment 518). The only issue to be resolved is whether the organisation's decisions on post classification apply to them. [...] This judgment should be extended to them only insofar as they have an interest, on account of their de jure and de facto position regarding post classification, in benefiting from the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 518
Keywords:
cause of action; enforcement; internal remedies exhausted; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2136
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1980
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5 and 10
Extract:
"The complainants contend that Judgment 1663 was not properly executed. According to a general principle, a judgment ordinarily affects only the parties to the suit and applies only to the issues raised in it. The Tribunal has applied that principle in judgments concerning monetary claims by staff members of organisations (see Judgment 1935, [...] under 4 to 6). The complainants were not parties to the proceedings that led to Judgment 1663 and so are not entitled to benefit from it unless they can invoke some special ground."
The complainants were unable to do so. Therefore the Tribunal found that, "having no locus standi to apply for the execution of Judgment 1663, the complainants cannot plead that the execution of the judgment was formally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1663, 1935
Keywords:
execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties;
Judgment 1979
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935
Keywords:
binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1934
88th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant cannot invoke in his favour res judicata in a case to which he was neither party nor intervener."
Keywords:
complainant; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; res judicata;
Judgment 1929
88th Session, 2000
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is not in the interests of the complainant to seek a ruling in law [...] when in practice he can obtain the quashing of the decision and redress."
Keywords:
claim; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 1904
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When the Tribunal gives an organisation the choice to either reinstate a complainant or pay damages, and the organisation chooses to pay damages, it does not have to pay the contributions of the pension fund or the staff health insurance.
Keywords:
allowance; contribution rate; contributions; health insurance; illness; insurance; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; pension; reconstruction of career; reinstatement; unjspf;
Judgment 1893
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organization. The Tribunal considers that "Judgment 1814 did not imply that his case succeeded on the merits; its sole objective was to send the case back to [the organization]'s competent bodies so that a lawful decision could be taken."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; flaw; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand;
Judgment 1892
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment sending the case back to the organisation for a new ruling on his appeal [...] must be disallowed because the [...] procedure necessitated by the judgment quashing the original decision was [...] implemented swiftly." [After a new recommendation by the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Director General rejected the complainant's new internal appeal three and a half months after the Tribunal's judgment that was then made the subject of an application for execution.]
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; delay; execution of judgment; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; remand; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organisation. The Tribunal considers that "it was appropriate to resume the procedure by referring the matter back to the Joint Committee for Disputes because it was the unlawful nature of the latter's opinion that led to the quashing of the decision. However, proper execution of the judgment did not necessarily imply recognition that the complainant's appeal was sound: all that was required was a new decision taken after due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; execution of judgment; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand; report;
Judgment 1887
87th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Application for the execution of a previous judgment.
"The Tribunal's case law has it that exhausting all internal remedies is not in fact necessary in cases which involve determining whether the authority responsible for executing a judgment has respected its terms. It is however in principle essential when a case is sent back to that authority to resume or continue the procedure and when the judgment leaves it a degree of discretion. However, with a view to avoiding a sheer pedantic approach, the Tribunal will waive the requirement for exhaustion of internal remedies where no legal purpose is served, for example where the case is fit to be judged and the parties have submitted their pleas (see Judgment 1771 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; cause; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 1812
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"There is no single time limit for executing judgments. The Tribunal's practice is to let the organisation have a reasonable amount of time to act, and what is reasonable will depend, among other things, on the circumstances and the issues at stake. To be sure, the Tribunal has said more than once that any lump-sum award by the Tribunal is to be paid in 30 days [see Judgments 1620 and 1748]. That deadline holds good when the organisation may readily work out the amount due. But it does not when a case is sent back for a new decision: the time to be allowed will then turn on the peculiarities of the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 1748
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; case sent back to organisation; delay; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; practice; time limit; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
