Execution of judgment (134, 745,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Execution of judgment
Total judgments found: 77
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 2720
105th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Of course the ITU, which had fulfilled its obligation to execute Judgment 2540, had every right to circulate comments that were critical of that judicial ruling [...]. In so doing, however, the Union was not entitled [...] to challenge the findings of fact made in that judgment, which had res judicata authority; nor was it entitled, above all, to harm the complainant's honour and reputation by defamatory statements."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
Keywords:
execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2684
104th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 and 10
Extract:
It must be emphasised that it is up to the parties to work together in good faith to execute the Tribunal’s judgments so as to ensure that they are executed within a reasonable period of time. It is apparent from the submissions that the procedure for obtaining a further medical opinion, as ordered in Judgment 2551, has been delayed most regrettably in a case in which the Tribunal has already drawn attention to the excessive length of the proceedings.
[...]
However, [the Tribunal] is bound to observe that [...] the Union failed in its duty to execute Judgment 2551 in good faith. [T]here is justification for awarding the complainant compensation [...].
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury;
Judgment 2458
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189
Keywords:
application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2327
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Internal debates and discussions in the [executive body of an international organisation] are irrelevant to [the organisation's] obligation faithfully and promptly to execute the Tribunal's judgments."
Keywords:
application for execution; effect; execution of judgment; executive body; judgment of the tribunal; suspensory effects; time limit;
Judgment 2304
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
Keywords:
application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. "Sound judicial policy requires that the Tribunal encourage parties to settle their disputes after as well as before judgment. That cannot happen if persons, like the complainant, who did not participate in a case, even though he might have done so, can interfere after the fact and prevent such settlement."
Keywords:
complainant; execution of judgment; general principle; iloat; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; request by a party; right; settlement out of court; status of complainant;
Judgment 2178
94th Session, 2003
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant filed an application for execution less than two months after the judgment on his first complaint was delivered. "The haste with which he came to the Tribunal is all the more regrettable for the fact that the discussions taking place between the parties could have enabled them, if not to reach an agreement, then at least to clarify certain aspects of the case which remain uncertain [...]. The Federation raises the question of whether under these circumstances the application for execution is receivable. However, the Tribunal's case law shows a constant line of precedent on this issue: any serious difficulty concerning the execution of a judgment can validly be brought before the Tribunal by means of an application for execution. In the present case, it is to be regretted that the difficulties could not be overcome by the parties through discussion in good faith, but the Federation may not object to the receivability of the complainant's application."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; condition; execution of judgment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1980
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5 and 10
Extract:
"The complainants contend that Judgment 1663 was not properly executed. According to a general principle, a judgment ordinarily affects only the parties to the suit and applies only to the issues raised in it. The Tribunal has applied that principle in judgments concerning monetary claims by staff members of organisations (see Judgment 1935, [...] under 4 to 6). The complainants were not parties to the proceedings that led to Judgment 1663 and so are not entitled to benefit from it unless they can invoke some special ground."
The complainants were unable to do so. Therefore the Tribunal found that, "having no locus standi to apply for the execution of Judgment 1663, the complainants cannot plead that the execution of the judgment was formally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1663, 1935
Keywords:
execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties;
Judgment 1892
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment sending the case back to the organisation for a new ruling on his appeal [...] must be disallowed because the [...] procedure necessitated by the judgment quashing the original decision was [...] implemented swiftly." [After a new recommendation by the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Director General rejected the complainant's new internal appeal three and a half months after the Tribunal's judgment that was then made the subject of an application for execution.]
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; delay; execution of judgment; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; remand; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organisation. The Tribunal considers that "it was appropriate to resume the procedure by referring the matter back to the Joint Committee for Disputes because it was the unlawful nature of the latter's opinion that led to the quashing of the decision. However, proper execution of the judgment did not necessarily imply recognition that the complainant's appeal was sound: all that was required was a new decision taken after due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; execution of judgment; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand; report;
Judgment 1887
87th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Application for the execution of a previous judgment.
"The Tribunal's case law has it that exhausting all internal remedies is not in fact necessary in cases which involve determining whether the authority responsible for executing a judgment has respected its terms. It is however in principle essential when a case is sent back to that authority to resume or continue the procedure and when the judgment leaves it a degree of discretion. However, with a view to avoiding a sheer pedantic approach, the Tribunal will waive the requirement for exhaustion of internal remedies where no legal purpose is served, for example where the case is fit to be judged and the parties have submitted their pleas (see Judgment 1771 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; cause; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 1812
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"There is no single time limit for executing judgments. The Tribunal's practice is to let the organisation have a reasonable amount of time to act, and what is reasonable will depend, among other things, on the circumstances and the issues at stake. To be sure, the Tribunal has said more than once that any lump-sum award by the Tribunal is to be paid in 30 days [see Judgments 1620 and 1748]. That deadline holds good when the organisation may readily work out the amount due. But it does not when a case is sent back for a new decision: the time to be allowed will then turn on the peculiarities of the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 1748
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; case sent back to organisation; delay; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; practice; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 1620
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Organization submits that its application for review had the effect of suspending the execution of the judgment. The plea is unfounded. Article VI of the Tribunal's Statute states that its judgments are 'final and without appeal'. There is no provision in its Statute or Rules for any stay in the execution of a judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 1514
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the light of Judgment 1368 "what [CERN] had to do was not just take new decisions untainted with the flaw the Tribunal had found but apply all the other material, procedural and substantive rules, which, having set aside the impugned decisions on the grounds of that flaw alone, the Tribunal had had no need to comment on. So any objections to the lawfulness of the decisions taken in compliance with the duty [set by the Tribunal] have a bearing on the execution of the judgment. And, as is plain from the case law - see, for example Judgments 732 [...] and 1328 [...] - the complainants did not have to go through the internal appeal procedure before coming back to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 1328, 1368
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; due process; exception; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1427
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Organization did not execute the judgment ordering it to reinstate the complainant as promptly as it should have. It caused him "needless uncertaintyby requiring him to apply for vacancies and by ignoring his request for reinstatement in the vacant post of storekeeper [which he formerly held]. It thus virtually compelled him to come back to the Tribunal".
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation's duties; reinstatement; vacancy;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant is entitled to "moral damages for the injury due to the thwarting of his legitimate expectation of prompt and correct execution of the Tribunal's judgment."
Keywords:
administrative delay; application for execution; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; legitimate expectation; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1425
79th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The judgment on which the complainant relies, "restored her contractual rights by quashing the unlawful dismissal. But it did not confer on her any rights beyond those she derived from her contract. Since the contract was for a fixed term CERN had no duty either to convert it into a permanent one or to extend it until she was fit to go back to work."
Keywords:
contract; execution of judgment; fixed-term; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 1419
78th Session, 1995
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"Where the Tribunal sets a decision aside the defendant organisation is bound to take any action required to give full effect to the wording and reasoning of the judgment. When the dispute is about financial liability the Tribunal may in the full exercise of its competence either state the amount of which the defendant is liable, if a sufficiently exact figure can be put on it, or else, where execution calls for further calculation or the play of discretion, send the case back to the organisation so that it may act on the rulings in the judgment."
Keywords:
compensation; consequence; discretion; effect; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata;
Judgment 1365
77th Session, 1994
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization submits that there was no point in resuming the process of appointment as ordered in Judgment 1272. "But there the organization shows misunderstanding about the effect of a judgment. The quashing of [Mr. X's] appointment [...] being res judicata, it had a duty under the judgment to resume the process from the date of the unlawful appointment, regardless of the new situation arising from the expiry of [Mr. X's] appointment and his assignment to [another] post [...]. The complainants are therefore right in contending that the organization was at fault in refusing to carry out the process properly."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
application for execution; breach; consequence; execution of judgment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants seek the quashing of a decision in which the WTO refused to resume the appointment process as ordered in Judgment 1272. "Yet any satisfaction that the complainants might derive from resumption of the procedure would be merely formal [so] the Tribunal exercises the option that Article VIII of its Statute allows of not setting aside the [impugned] decisions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
application for execution; breach; consequence; damages; execution of judgment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Judgment 1362
77th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal must rule yet again on WIPO's refusal to discharge the obligation to decide on reinstatement. As it has stated more than once, its judgments are to be given immediate effect. In the regrettable event that the Organization continues to disregard that rule and fails to act within 30 days of the date of delivery of this judgment, it must pay the complainant 10,000 swiss francs by way of penalty for each further month of delay."
Keywords:
amount; application for execution; continuing breach; decision; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; penalty for delay; refusal; reinstatement; res judicata; time limit;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The constant thrust of the three earlier judgments was to secure from the organization [...] discharge of its obligation to communicate to [the complainant] a proper decision. He might then impugn that decision if it was not to his liking, and the Tribunal might if need be review the reasons for it, which is something it has not yet been able to do. The complainant is entitled to such decision as a matter of course, without having to ask for it and without delay. That obligation WIPO has stubbornly ignored, it is in breach of the rule of law in the international civil service, and that is not to be brooked."
Keywords:
application for execution; continuing breach; execution of judgment; express decision; international civil service principles; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; right of appeal;
Judgment 1361
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal reaffirms that its rulings have the force of res judicata and are binding on the organisations that have recognised its jurisdiction. Any organisation that offends against that rudimentary principle by refusing to give effect to judgments it does not care for is disregarding the rights of staff and its own interests and is acting in breach of the obligations that it has assumed by recognising the Tribunal's jurisdiction."
Keywords:
acceptance; application for execution; competence of tribunal; continuing breach; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; res judicata; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1338
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"An organisation must, where a specific sum has been awarded [by the Tribunal], pay compensation if it takes more than one month to pay after the judgment was notified, save that if, as in Judgment 1219, the Tribunal does not put a figure on the amount due, the need to work out the figure warrants allowing additional time. In this instance [...] apart from alleging the need for consultations the Organization has offered no explanation for the delay in payment. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant payment of interest".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1219
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; interest on damages; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment; penalty for delay; res judicata; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"An international organisation which has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction is bound, not merely to refrain from acting in disregard of a judgment, but to take whatever action the judgment may require."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1219
Keywords:
application for execution; consequence; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
