|
|
 |
|
|
ILOAT (131,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: ILOAT
Total judgments found: 63
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 3247
116th Session, 2014
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"In a case such as the present, jurisdiction is limited and defined by organisations submitting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the complainant being an official (or former official) of an organisation that has so submitted (see Judgments 2503, consideration 4, and 3049, consideration 4). The complainant was not an official of the Global Fund at any relevant time. She was an official of UNOPS, which has not submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the complainant’s complaint save for determining whether it has jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore not receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2503, 3049
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Tribunal, which has the power to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that its judgments are executed, may, if it considers it appropriate, order the payment of a penalty for default (see, for example, Judgments 1620, under 10, or 2806, under 11). In the present case, the patent lack of goodwill demonstrated by [the organisation] to date with regard to honouring its obligation to pay the awards made against it justifies the imposition of a penalty, as requested by the complainant, of 25,000 euros for each month's delay in the settlement of the awards made in this judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 2806
Keywords:
application for execution; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
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 3049
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to complaints filed by individuals who do not have the status of an official in the defendant organisations.
"The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, '[t]he Tribunal shall [...] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations of any [...] international organization meeting the standards set out in the Annex hereto which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration recognizing, in accordance with its Constitution or internal administrative rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official of [the Organization] and is not covered by [the latter's] Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, in particular the provisions governing the internal appeal process, she has no access to this Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence; competence of tribunal; iloat; iloat statute; non official; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
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 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"All issues of receivability raised may [...] remain undecided because the complaint is manifestly ill-founded."
Keywords:
complaint; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
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 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 2585
102nd Session, 2007
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"While it is true, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 2156, that 'elected representatives of the staff enjoy specific rights and safeguards in accordance with the general principles which govern employment relationships in international organisations and which are also generally recognised in national labour legislation', it is still up to the staff member complaining that such specific rights and safeguards have been violated to prove that fact and not merely rely on bald assertions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; case law; collective rights; domestic law; general principle; iloat; official; organisation; request by a party; right; safeguard; staff representative; working relations;
Judgment 2581
102nd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[C]onsistent precedent has it that 'decisions in respect of post classification are at the Administration's discretion and can only be set aside on limited grounds. It does not behove the Tribunal to substitute its own post assessment for that of the Organization' (see for example Judgment 1874)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1874
Keywords:
case law; decision; discretion; grounds; iloat; judicial review; limits; organisation; post classification;
Judgment 2567
101st Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[I]t must be recalled that according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal '[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations'. The Tribunal will on its own motion examine whether this condition of receivability is met (see Judgments 60, 1082 and 1095).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1082, 1095
Keywords:
application of law ex officio; complaint; condition; decision; iloat; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law has determined that the head of an international organisation has the 'executive authority to assign staff to different posts' (Judgment 534), and 'is empowered to change the duties assigned to his subordinates' (Judgment 265)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 265, 534
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; assignment; case law; discretion; executive head; iloat; official; organisation; post; supervisor;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 2473
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2366
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Ordinarily, the process of decision making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. Occasionally however, what appears to be a single and final decision may embody more than one decision. That will be the case if separate and distinct issues have to be decided. So, too, a decision which does not resolve an entire dispute may nonetheless constitute a final decision if it is a decision on a separate and distinct issue. The present is such a case."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; decision; definition; difference; general principle; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2361
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal, in keeping with consistent precedent, may not replace the findings of medical boards with its own. But it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and whether the reports used as a basis for administrative decisions show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence (see Judgment 1284, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; decision; disregard of essential fact; iloat; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedure before the tribunal; report; vested competence;
Judgment 2360
97th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] recalls its case law, whereby every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that he or she should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 630)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 630
Keywords:
case law; general principle; iloat; official; organisation's duties; post;
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
