Formal requirements (78, 947,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Formal requirements
Total judgments found: 103
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 2360
97th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Organization considers that the claims for compensation for certain heads of injury were not submitted during the internal appeal proceedings and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. "[T]he claims to compensation for moral injury and for breach of the complainant's rights were put forward in the internal appeal, though in a different form, and are certainly receivable, even though some heads of injury, concerning the complainant's state of health in particular, had not been enlarged upon, since the complainant had stated in his appeal [...] that the decision he contested caused him 'undoubted material and moral injury'."
Keywords:
breach; claim; compensation; decision; difference; formal requirements; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material injury; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2352
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant's post was abolished and his appointment terminated. "It is clear from the [applicable] provisions that [...] the Staff Committee had to be consulted before the decision was taken to terminate the complainant's appointment. The purpose of consulting an advisory body, prior to terminating an official's appointment, is to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head. The Tribunal takes the view that it is established, by the evidence [...], that the Staff Committee was indeed consulted regarding the suppression of the [complainant's] post [...]. However, it considers that the Committee was not formally consulted with regard to the intention to terminate the complainant's appointment. [...] As the impugned decision was taken in breach of the applicable rules, it must be held unlawful and the Tribunal need not rule on the complainant's other pleas."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; condition; consequence; decision; due process; executive head; flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; purpose; recommendation; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Administration accessed the complainant's computer while she was on sick leave. The Tribunal considers that "the events which occurred during the complainant's absence on sick leave were most unfortunate. However [...] it is understandable that, given the urgency attending the Sub-Committee meeting preparations on which the complainant was working, her computer was accessed. [The] matter could and should have been handled with greater sensitivity and with proper regard to the complainant's privacy. Even so, those events fall far short of establishing hostility amounting to harassment."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; sick leave; working relations;
Judgment 2288
96th Session, 2004
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the safeguard available to international civil servants in the form of the mandatory consultation of an advisory body prior to any disciplinary measure cannot legally speaking be said to be complied with unless that body has held an official meeting, the matter has been discussed among the members and minutes of the meeting have been concomitantly drawn up. In the present case, the complainant was denied an essential safeguard owing to the individual consultation of the Joint Advisory Committee members by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] and the disregard for the procedure established in the Staff Rules."
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; consultation; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; formal requirements; general principle; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a non-disciplinary nature is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications (see, for example, Judgments 1496, 1556, 1972 [...]). The transfer may be motivated by the need to eliminate tensions compromising the functioning of a department (see, for example, Judgments 132, 1018 and 1972)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 132, 1018, 1496, 1556, 1972
Keywords:
assignment; case law; decision; discontinuance; effect; formal requirements; general principle; grade; grounds; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; post held by the complainant; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working relations;
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, transfer decisions, which have been initiated by the administration and not at the staff member's request, may be disciplinary, non-disciplinary (in the interests of the organisation, independently of any fault) or even mixed in nature. [...] A transfer dictated by the interests of the organisation but which is also disciplinary in nature must clearly also comply with the specific rules protecting staff members in the case of disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 1929 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929
Keywords:
case law; decision; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; safeguard; transfer;
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the opportunity for the staff member concerned to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged amongst the disciplinary sanctions set out in the staff regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings [...] which may [...] give rise to disciplinary sanctions (see Judgments 1796, 1929 under 7, 1972 under 3 and 4, and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1796, 1929, 1972
Keywords:
case law; consequence; disciplinary measure; disclosure of evidence; evidence; formal requirements; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; participation; right to reply; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2223
95th Session, 2003
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General [did not initiate] the appeal procedure invalidates the defendant's argument that internal remedies were not exhausted, although they should have been as required by article vii of the Tribunal's Statute. While it is regrettable that the case was never brought before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board, this does not prevent the Tribunal from ruling on the merits of the complaint, which has been filed within the applicable rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; consequence; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
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 2112
92nd Session, 2002
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"A decision affecting an official will always be preceded by administrative formalities, but it will become binding on the organisation only when it is notified to the official, in the manner prescribed by the organisation (see Judgment 1560, under 9). Notification may also take some other form as long as it can be inferred from it that the organisation intended to notify the decision. But information about the formalities themselves is clearly not notification. In the interests of clarity it is desirable, and indeed often the practice, for the person concerned by some future decision to be given such information. But to see it as notification of a decision would be wrong and could lead to serious confusion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560
Keywords:
administrative instruction; binding character; condition; date; decision; definition; duty to inform; effect; formal requirements; purport;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The issue to be resolved [...] is whether the complainants are barred from objecting to the [organisation]'s failure to take into account the corrected level of salaries for 1995 in determining the salaries for 1996 and 1997, because they did not first challenge their salaries for 1996 and 1997 [... ] when they were originally fixed. But in view of the circumstances, to make such a demand on them would be pedantic and wanting in good faith. As the parties were aware at the time, the salary levels for 1995 were under challenge [...] Moreover, any change in salary levels will ordinarily affect pay in subsequent years. The staff therefore had good reason to believe that a change in pay for 1995 would have a "knock on" effect on the level of salaries used as a basis for calculating pay in the future. Moreover, the [organisation] could be in no doubt that this was what staff would expect. In these circumstances, and having given them no indication to the contrary, the [organisation] could not require staff to challenge each new determination of their salaries on the conditional and hypothetical basis that any successful challenge to the remuneration for a previous year (in this case 1995) should automatically be carried through to the salary levels taken into account in subsequent years."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; formal requirements; general principle; good faith; legitimate expectation; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; time bar;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that an organisation is ordinarily free to determine the pay of its staff, provided that it respects certain requirements arising from general principles of international civil service law [...] Furthermore, if the organisation has a rule granting certain rights to staff members in relation to their level of salary, it may not depart from that rule in individual decisions without amending it in accordance with the prescribed procedure."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; case law; condition; discretion; formal requirements; general principle; individual decision; international civil service principles; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; right; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2018
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Discussions between the complainant and his supervisors [...] with respect to relatively minor concerns do not constitute a warning so as to make the complainant aware of the risk of dismissal and the need for improvement."
Keywords:
complainant; formal requirements; supervisor; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1897
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11(a)
Extract:
"In keeping with the rule that similar acts require similar procedures, the modification of a rule - including allowing an exception - must respect the same process which was used for its adoption."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; exception; formal requirements; general principle; parallelism of form; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1839
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. The methodology [of the International Civil Service Commission] provides in paragraph 6 that, though it is preferable to have representatives of both management and staff take part, the technical requirements will still be met even if one side prefers not to; so that actual participation by both sides is not a requirement. Nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[W]ith respect to the complainant's submission that the Disciplinary Board's report is not valid because it is not dated, signed or otherwise authenticated, the 'report' is actually a summary record of the Board's meetings. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the record is not an accurate summary of the Board's views, and it was clearly adopted by the Board, as well as the [Organisation], as representing them. The substance of the summary record clearly indicates the conclusion of the Board. There is thus no irregularity in the form of the report."
Keywords:
claim; disciplinary procedure; formal flaw; formal requirements; report;
Judgment 1583
82nd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
"An organisation may not in good faith end someone's appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better. The warning need not contain express mention of the risk of termination if performance does not improve: the risk is implied. Nor need any later shortcomings be the same as those that prompted the warning: it suffices that the official understood that his performance as a whole must improve".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546
Keywords:
contract; formal requirements; good faith; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"That he set out his pleas in a brief entered several months [after filing his complaint] after due extension of the time limit granted for the purpose, has no bearing on receivability. As was held in Judgment 1305 [...] under 16 - to which the Tribunal draws the organization's attention - the Registrar may as such take any action he sees fit to safeguard due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1305
Keywords:
case law; complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; new time limit; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant filed within the time limit in the Statute the complaint form provided for in the Schedule to the Rules. The entries sufficed to identify the decision he was impugning and the relief he was claiming. The registering of the complaint and the correcting of it within the time limit were in line with the Rules. Since the complaint was lodged in time the Organization's objection to receivability fails."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; correction of complaint; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant had notice of the impugned decision; Article 6(1) of the Rules sets out the requirements of form; and 6(2) says that if not satisfied that the complaint meets those requirements the registrar shall call upon the complainant to correct it within thirty days. The Rules do not say that all the formal requirements must be met by the date of filing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(1) AND 6(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1305
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Registrar's manifold responsibilities, which go far beyond the ambit of Article 7(4) [*] of the Rules of Court, include the general task of maintaining relations between the Tribunal and the parties and the just as important task of ensuring proper compilation of records on cases lodged with the Tribunal. In performing those tasks the Registrar is empowered ex officio to take any action he deems fit to safeguard due process."
*since 1 May 1994, Article 6(2) of the Tribunal's Rules
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
Consideration 17
Extract:
In the light of article 7(4) [*] of the Rules on the procedure for correcting a complaint, the Tribunal holds that "since those who fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction live far and wide and are free to plead their own case, it is the Registrar's particular duty to see that complaints filed with the Tribunal are correctly presented and to offer a complainant such comment or advice as he thinks proper for the correction of the papers."
*since 1 May 1994, Article 6(2) of the Tribunal's Rules
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7(4) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The complainant is unable to provide any proof of the date on which he says he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. "The Tribunal observes that its Rules of Court are liberal in that for the purpose of reckoning the time limit Article 6(3) [*] takes the date of dispatch and thereby relieves the complainant of liability for any faulty transmittal after dispatch. "That makes it the more important to establish the date of dispatch beyond doubt in each case. [...] The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence of the dispatch of his complaint. [...] Although the Tribunal does not question the sincerity of the complainant [...] it cannot treat [his] assertions as if they were objective evidence: if it did so it would be affording an opportunity for fraudulent evasion of time limits."
*superseded by Article 4(2) of the Tribunal's Rules as in force since 1 May 1994
Keywords:
complaint; date; evidence; formal requirements; iloat statute; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1259
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant objects to the non-renewal of his contract. The organization says his complaint is irreceivable. It does not deny that he sent a memorandum challenging the decision but argues that his internal appeal was not properly presented since he did not submit it to the Director-General himself. "That objection fails because the memorandum was correctly addressed to the Director of the Bureau of personnel, whom he asked to convey to the administration his decision to appeal. So it was incumbent on the Director to forward it to the Director-General."
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
