Competence of Tribunal (102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competence of Tribunal
Total judgments found: 473
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
Judgment 4041
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As a former employee, the complainant challenges the decision to ban her from entering the EPO premises without prior authorisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint will be dismissed as the Tribunal has no competence to hear it. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly provides that the 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”. The present complaint does not fall within the ambit of this provision as it does not allege non-observance of the terms of an appointment which the complainant held with the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4029
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him the two-step within-grade increase which, he argues, WHO ought to have granted him at the time of his appointment under a fixed-term contract.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant’s request for an order requiring WHO to provide him with a Certificate of Service is beyond the Tribunal’s competence. However, it is noted that WHO has agreed to provide the complainant with a Certificate of Service upon request.
Keywords:
certificate of service; competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 4010
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
A convenient starting point in the Tribunal’s consideration of the complainant’s performance appraisals for 2012 is to identify the principles which are applicable. The principles are well settled. The Tribunal recognises that “assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment” (see Judgment 3945, consideration 7). The Tribunal will set aside a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 7, 3692, consideration 8, 3378, consideration 6, 3006, consideration 7, and 2834, consideration 7). [...]
[T]he complainant’s analysis does not reveal any factual errors that might have had a material effect on the ultimate conclusions about his performance. While the analysis reflects the complainant’s view, understandably favourable to him, of how he had performed in relation to those seven activities, it does not reveal an error of the type that would warrant intervention by the Tribunal having regard to the principles discussed in consideration 5 above. The complainant’s supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainant’s performance and it was not flawed by any material factual error. It was a view based on evaluation and assessment of available material. While the complainant disagrees with that evaluation and assessment, it was within the supervisor’s discretionary power to make that evaluation and assessment, and there is no basis established by the complainant for reviewing the exercise of that power and for setting aside the performance appraisal which was, in part, based on it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; performance evaluation; performance report;
Judgment 4006
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
At the forefront of the ICC’s contention about receivability are the provisions of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. Those provisions define, establish and limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s contention is receivable, notwithstanding that no point has been raised before and within the internal consideration of the complainant’s Complaint about the receivability of the complaint. Plainly enough, the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as established by Article II of its Statute, can only arise at a point when a complainant seeks to invoke that jurisdiction.
Article II is concerned with the vindication and enforcement of individual rights or privileges of staff members of international organisations, conferred either by normative legal documents regulating or governing their employment, or conferred by the terms of their appointment. Similarly, the Article is concerned with the enforcement of obligations or duties of international organisations towards their staff. An overlay on these rights, privileges, duties and obligations is the Tribunal’s case law. These rights or privileges and duties or obligations may attach to individual staff members or a particular class of staff members which, obviously enough, can, and often does, include all staff members. This description of the scope of Article II can be expressed in a variety of ways. But this description captures the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by Article II. There are many judgments of the Tribunal that address this question including, recently, Judgments 3526, consideration 5, 3642, consideration 11, and 3760, consideration 6.
Articles 46 and 47 of the Rome Statute together with the implementing Rules in the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, are not intended to confer on members of staff, and do not do so, a particular right or privilege for the benefit of staff; nor are they intended to impose, and do not do so, a particular duty or obligation directed to members of staff. Rather, those provisions are intended to benefit the world at large. That is to say, they are provisions intended to preserve the integrity of the ICC as an international court by imposing a standard of conduct on the judges and senior officials of the Court, creating a mechanism for the enforcement of those standards and, additionally, affording anyone with an interest the opportunity to enforce those standards. They are not provisions of a character comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute insofar as they are invoked by staff members other than, potentially, the officials directly affected, such as the Registrar, the Prosecutor or an individual judge. Accordingly, proceedings invoking Articles 46 and 47 alone and seeking their enforcement are not within the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3526, 3642, 3760
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3999
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds it useful to note that even if it were possible to consider the complainant’s claim regarding reclassification, it would not be able to order the immediate reclassification of her post as requested. It is well settled in the case law that the Tribunal will not order the promotion or reclassification of a staff member, as such decisions are discretionary and involve specialist evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 3370, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3370
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3989
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The EPO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3972.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The other questions entail, in substance, a request for an advisory opinion from the Tribunal [...]. However, it is not for the Tribunal to advise the parties with any particularity about what they should do or refrain from doing and whether a proposed course of conduct is in conformity with, or violates, provisions in the Service Regulations. In the event that either party, and the EPO in particular because it is amenable to proceedings against it in a further complaint or other proceedings, behaves unlawfully, the conduct is open to review.
Keywords:
application for execution; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3949
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claims for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is not the Tribunal’s role, in a case such as the present, to adjudicate on the merits of a claim for compensation on medical grounds in the absence of a consideration of the question by a body that has been established for that purpose, if any, within an organisation (such as the ABCC) and in the absence of considered medical opinions addressing the question (see generally Judgment 3538, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; medical opinion;
Judgment 3940
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the outsourcing of certain services, that is to say the use by an organisation of external contractors to perform tasks that it feels unable to assign to officials hired under its staff regulations, forms part of the general employment policy that an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests. The Tribunal is not competent to review the advisability or merits of the adoption of such a measure in a specific field of activity (see Judgments 3275, under 8, 3225, under 6, 3041, under 6, 2972, under 7, 2907, under 13, 2510, under 10, 2156, under 8, and 1131, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2156, 2510, 2907, 2972, 3041, 3225, 3275
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; organisation's interest; outsourcing;
Judgment 3938
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
[The Organization] advised the complainant that [...] the [host State] authorities [...] would not issue her an entry visa [...].
As the complainant’s appointment was conditional on her obtaining a work visa, her appointment was not confirmed. It follows that as she was not a UNESCO official, her complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Consideration 26
Extract:
The Tribunal has no power to order the Global Fund, as the complainant requests, to renew her employment on a “long-term contract of continuing duration” to a post which fits her qualifications, background and experience. Neither does the Tribunal have power to award her material damages equivalent to the amount which she would have received in a higher position (see Judgment 3835, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3835
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 3895
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3694.
Consideration 5
Extract:
With respect to the remaining requested clarifications, b) to e) [...], the Tribunal finds that they are not requests for interpretation of the judgment, but are instead essentially requests for advice. Specifically, the complainant asks about the lawfulness of the new norms and if their applicability to his appeal adheres to the principles of international civil service law. These requests for advice are beyond the Tribunal’s competence.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3876
124th Session, 2017
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It should also be noted that it is clearly not the Tribunal’s role to identify “any [...] objective evidence [...] proving [the complainant’s] paternity”, as he requests, since the Tribunal cannot provide the parties with legal or expert opinions.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3858
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has accepted that the question of what is in the best interest of an organisation is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of the executive head (see Judgment 2377, consideration 5). The Tribunal’s jurisprudence, as discussed in that judgment, is that the Tribunal will normally defer to the view of the executive head and will only intervene if it is shown that the executive head acted without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if a decision was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts or if there was abuse of authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; organisation's interest;
Judgment 3845
124th Session, 2017
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[A]s the Statute of the Tribunal does not provide for the right to formulate reservations concerning the scope of the Tribunal’s competence, organisations recognising the Tribunal’s jurisdiction accept that all disputes arising between them and their officials may be submitted to the Tribunal.
While it is true that in the letter [...] by which it asked to recognise the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the ACP Group specified that its request pertained to the provisions of Title IX of the Staff Regulations governing disciplinary proceedings, it ensues from the foregoing that such a request could not be approved in that form. Consequently, the acceptance by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office of the request must be understood as intending to empower the Tribunal to hear all disputes between the ACP Group and its officials.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 3834
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3774
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that he has not been offered further contracts with the ILO.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; external candidate; ratione personae;
Judgment 3726
123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
IOM has not disputed that the five subject tasks that were assigned to the complainant occasioned her to perform duties and responsibilities which were above her G.5 grade. An international organization is required to respect the grading structure and grades of its staff members. The following was accordingly stated in Judgment 808, consideration 22:
“In sum the Director-General may assign the staff as the Organisation’s interests require provided he respects their grades and the grading structure. Transfer does not depend on their consent and they must be willing to put their hand to any work that suits their grade, their qualifications and the terms of their appointment.”
The complainant seems to invite the Tribunal to reclassify her post in relation to her performance of the subject tasks, but the Tribunal has no authority to do so (see Judgment 3284, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3720
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3510.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] asks the Tribunal to review the lawfulness of the procedure followed by the authorities of the Netherlands, but this is plainly not within its competence.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3709
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a retired UNESCO official, impugns the decision of the Director-General not to give her access to the submissions of another official who filed a complaint against UNESCO with the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; former official; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, a former official of UNESCO, does not allege any breach of her terms of appointment or of Staff Regulations applicable to her.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; former official;
Judgment 3705
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a re-characterisation of her employment relationship with WIPO.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; official; summary procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complainant cannot be considered an official, she does not have access to the Tribunal (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), 3049, under 4, and 3550, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 3049, 3550
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; official;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
|
