Oral proceedings (166, 167, 633, 795, 796, 707, 797, 798, 799,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Oral proceedings
Total judgments found: 196

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >

• Judgment 3059

  
  112th Session, 2012
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "The complainant [...] raises no issue that would justify the Tribunal departing from its consistent practice not to grant an oral hearing in cases which turn essentially on questions of law."

  Keywords:

  oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3058

  
  112th Session, 2012
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "Oral hearings are sought in each of the complaints presently under consideration. As the outcome depends mainly on questions of law and the facts relevant to those issues are not in dispute, the applications for oral hearings are rejected."

  Keywords:

  oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3057

  
  112th Session, 2012
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "[T]he complainant seeks an oral hearing. However, the essential facts are not in dispute and the outcome turns on the meaning and effect of the applicable provisions of the Service Regulations. Accordingly, the application for an oral hearing is refused."

  Keywords:

  oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3023

  
  111th Session, 2011
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2893, under 5, in relevant part:
  “Neither the legal provisions governing [the Appeals Committee] nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 623, 2893
  

  Keywords:

  internal appeals body; oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2893

  
  108th Session, 2010
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
  "This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
  

  Keywords:

  breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2751

  
  105th Session, 2008
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2558

  
  101st Session, 2006
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5(b)

  Extract:

  The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2424

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2416

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

  Considerations 8 and 11

  Extract:

  "The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
  The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2197

  
  94th Session, 2003
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 33

  Extract:

  "Since compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed. Here, while the [Joint Appeals] Board, once the meetings had started, came to its conclusion fairly quickly, there can be no valid excuse to justify the delay of over twenty months between the filing of the internal appeal and the start of the hearings. No doubt some of this was due to the complainant herself and the long convoluted and complicated nature of her pleadings, which frequently contradict themselves, but [the organization] cannot escape responsibility for the inordinate amount of time taken." The Tribunal awards 3 000 euros in damages.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072
  

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1977

  
  89th Session, 2000
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."

  Keywords:

  evidence; misconduct; oral proceedings; refusal; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1661

  
  83rd Session, 1997
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "The complainant has applied for hearings to take evidence from several witnesses and from himself [...]". The Tribunal holds that there is no need for hearings or from the taking of evidence from the proposed witnesses and gives six reasons why.

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; evidence; oral proceedings; refusal; right to reply; submissions; testimony;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1592

  
  82nd Session, 1997
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[The complainant] pleads 'grave breaches' of due process in his [...] complaint. But the only one he cites is the rejection of his application for hearings. As the Tribunal has said time and again - for example in Judgment 442 [...] - failure to hear evidence is not an admissible plea for review."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
  

  Keywords:

  application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1406

  
  78th Session, 1995
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant wants the Tribunal to hold hearings and call witnesses "if it needs proof of any facts. Since the WHO has produced further evidence, there is no need for such hearings. Moreover, the disclosure of that evidence satisfies the Tribunal that there has been due process."

  Keywords:

  actuary; adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; due process; oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1248

  
  74th Session, 1993
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The complainant "applies to the Tribunal for appointment of an expert to inquire into the scientific issues. His application is disallowed because the evidence he submits casts no doubt on the soundness of the medical opinion the organisation is relying on. For the same reason the Tribunal rejects his application for hearings."

  Keywords:

  advisory opinion; appraisal of evidence; expert inquiry; further submissions; medical opinion; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1241

  
  74th Session, 1993
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "Pleading the importance of the case the complainants [...] apply for hearings, but the who believes that the Tribunal has before it full and accurate written statements of the issues of fact and law. The Tribunal takes the same view, especially since the case turns on matters of principle, not on the personal circumstances of this, that or the other litigant."

  Keywords:

  oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1233

  
  74th Session, 1993
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal disallows the complainant's application for oral proceedings and for the hearing of at least one of her witnesses. Since it has full submissions before it and the witness she most wants it to hear has already supplied evidence in writing, hearings would serve no useful purpose."

  Keywords:

  oral proceedings; refusal; testimony; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1226

  
  74th Session, 1993
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "The complainants apply for hearings. They have already had the opportunity of enlarging on their original submissions and on their rejoinders and of commenting on the ample evidence at their disposal. They sought leave to file submissions in answer to the surrejoinder and the disclosure of additional information and items. The interlocutory judgment granted the parties leave to file further submissions, which are now before the Tribunal. It therefore has all the material required for a final ruling. It dismisses the complainants' application as pointless."

  Keywords:

  additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; oral proceedings; refusal; submissions; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1193

  
  73rd Session, 1992
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The complainant has applied for oral proceedings so that he may 'explain facts that are not included in the documents'. He does not say what those facts are or why they may not be set out in his written submissions or what relevance they may have to the material issues. His application is therefore disallowed."

  Keywords:

  oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1174

  
  73rd Session, 1992
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant submits that a "new fact [...] would have become obvious had the Tribunal allowed her application for hearings since evidence from the witnesses she wanted to call would have been more telling than her own written submissions. There is nothing in her application to suggest that such evidence would have established a new fact of the kind the case law requires if review of the original judgment was to be warranted. And in any event failure to admit evidence does not afford admissible grounds for review".

  Keywords:

  application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >