|
|
 |
|
|
Publication (623,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Publication
Total judgments found: 30
< previous | 1, 2
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant "argues that [the Internal Memorandum] is unlawful because it was not given the sort of publication that he says the case law and several international instruments required. But he did have access to the Memorandum since he asked the Director General [...] to apply it in his favour. So lack of wider publication caused him no injury [...]".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; lack of injury; publication;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The appeal procedure set forth in the Service Regulations is, to quote Article 106, an individual appeals system. Such too is the basic feature of the system of appeal embodied in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal, though it is subject to the provision in Article VII(2) setting a special time limit for appeal against any decision affecting a 'class of officials', which runs from the date of issue. So it is only by virtue of an individual contract of employment with the organisation that someone may lodge a complaint and the complainant may not alter the nature of the suit by declaring when he files the complaint that he is doing so as a staff union representative."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II AND ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 106 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; start of time limit; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 1204
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainants object to a decision denying them so-called "out-of-career" promotions. They submit that the original decisions were taken for an unlawful reason of principle and that the organization later confirmed the decisions on quite different grounds. The organization says it merely exercised the discretion inherent in managerial prerogative and did not alter the original reasons but merely added to them. "Although the competent authority has discretion to grant or refuse the promotion of staff who qualify under the material rules, it must abide by the rules, and whatever decisions it takes will be subject to judicial review [...] so as to determine whether they pass muster the rules have to be known to everyone and an organisation may not go beyond the duly published texts and resort to secret provisions that change the thrust of the ones it intended to treat as binding. Before it takes its discretionary decision, it must compare the merits of all staff who qualify under the rules [...] CERN committed two mistakes of law. One was to apply to the complainants rules that had never been published and that it regarded as binding. The other was to defend its position ex post facto by saying that its reasons for rejecting the complainants' claims were connected with their performance, though there is no evidence of any comparative and analytical assessment of the kind that international officials are entitled to."
Keywords:
applicable law; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; judicial review; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; publication; refusal;
Judgment 911
64th Session, 1988
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"In denying the association its customary privilege of having a text printed and issued, the organization infringed its rights as representative and defender of the staff's interests. The impugned decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
discontinuance; facilities; freedom of association; publication; staff union;
Judgment 611
53rd Session, 1984
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization "do not deny they made changes of form and substance [to the text of the complainant's report] without his approval. But they were fully entitled by virtue of their rights under [the applicable rule] to endorse or reject his draft: they were under no duty either to seek comments from him or to act on any he made."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; organisation; publication; right;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"In two of its judgments the Tribunal has already ruled on a text akin to [the rule in question, which prescribes the organization's rights in work produced by its staff] and upheld it as valid. The precedents bear out Unesco's interpretation of that rule. [Furthermore], fairly similar provisions are to be found in legislation in several countries. Accordingly, even if the rule does not reflect any universally acknowledged concept it must be given some weight."
Keywords:
case law; domestic law; organisation; proprietary rights; publication;
Summary
Extract:
Copyright in that portion of the technical report written by the complainant during his free time and containing data from outside his official area of knowledge is wholly vested in the organization. The provision on which the organization relies is a staff rule applicable even though not based on any provision of the Staff Regulations; whenever the report was drafted and whatever its content, it is part of the complainant's professional duties and its nature remains the same; the organization had discretion to alter the complainant's draft, as they were free to publish the report at all.
Keywords:
organisation; proprietary rights; publication; right;
Judgment 471
47th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the applicable provision, "when the organization employs staff to produce works of scholarship, it holds all author's rights, including copyright and reproduction rights. [...] The text was written for the [organization] and at its request. The complainant received no special remuneration for the other manuals which he wrote, and which have been published. From that it is clear that he did not hold copyright."
Keywords:
complainant; proprietary rights; publication;
Judgment 256
34th Session, 1975
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The material provision "provides for the establishment for each official of a personal file which shall be confidential. The confidential character of the file does not, however, apply to information which, though it may be deduced from the personal file, may be as readily obtained from other sources such as publications of the organisation or public records." In the present case the information given, even if it might also have been found in the complainant's personal file, was not confidential within the meaning of the provision in question.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; criteria; definition; personal file; publication;
Judgment 101
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The fact that the organisation authorised publication in a law review by one of its officials of a commentary of purely scientific interest on a public judgment relating to [the complainant] is not open to criticism in any respect."
Keywords:
acceptance; organisation; publication; publication of judgment;
Judgment 66
11th Session, 1962
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
An international civil servant is not entitled to require that the publication of work carried out within the scope of his duties be done under his name. "However, where the organisation decides of its own volition that the publication shall bear the name of its authors, the organisation is bound to respect the principle of equality as between officials in the same position and, consequently, to mention the name of all those who can claim authorship."
Keywords:
equal treatment; proprietary rights; publication;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The production of monthly reports by the complainant, the contents of which are not disputed, would serve no useful purpose. "On the other hand, the Tribunal requested the organization to produce the general reports submitted by the complainant" and a paper prepared by two other persons. The complainant "was invited to view and identify these documents before the registrar and in the presence of the agent of the organization."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; publication; request by a party; tribunal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"An official of an international organisation has no rights whatsoever in the results of such work as he performs and such studies as he carries out on behalf of the organisation within the scope of his duties, at the request of his supervisors, during hours of work and with the means provided by the administration. In particular, where the organisation decides to publish the work and studies he has conducted [...] the official is not entitled to require that they be published under his name."
Keywords:
condition; proprietary rights; publication; terms of appointment;
Judgment 57
10th Session, 1962
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Preamble and Material Facts
Extract:
Considering the complaint and the reply of the organization to the preliminary conclusion put forward in the said complaint, whereby the complainant requests that the Tribunal "should order the publication of the [document] to be suspended pending a judgment on the legality of the decision impugned. in view of their urgency and their contents, the preliminary conclusions call for an immediate decision."
Keywords:
interlocutory order; publication; refusal; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2
|
|
|
|
|
