ILOAT Statute (223,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: ILOAT Statute
Total judgments found: 193
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejeter ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral et demande réparation pour le préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Dans la mesure où la requête est dirigée contre la décision du Directeur général de rejeter, comme infondée, sa première plainte pour harcèlement moral dirigée contre M. P. H., le Tribunal observe ce qui suit :
a) Lorsque l’administration prend des mesures pour traiter une réclamation, par exemple en la transmettant à l’organe de recours interne compétent, cette démarche constitue en soi une «décision touchant ladite réclamation» au sens de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal, qui fait obstacle à la naissance d’une décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être déférée devant le Tribunal (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3715, au considérant 4, 3428, au considérant 18, et 3146, au considérant 12).
b) En application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le requérant aurait dû introduire une requête devant le Tribunal dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours à compter de l’expiration du délai de quatre mois dont disposait l’administration pour répondre à sa réclamation, et ce, même si la Commission paritaire des litiges avait été saisie. La présente requête devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour tardiveté en vertu de l’article VII, paragraphe 2, du Statut du Tribunal, combiné avec le paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif.
c) Mais, en l’espèce, le Tribunal considère que le requérant a été induit en erreur par l’Organisation lorsque cette dernière lui a indiqué que, en raison de la transmission de sa réclamation à la Commission paritaire des litiges, il devait, en application de la jurisprudence du Tribunal relative à l’application de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, de son Statut, attendre la décision définitive du Directeur général avant de pouvoir saisir le Tribunal. Ce faisant, l’Organisation a en effet omis de tenir compte de ce que, en application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le défaut de réponse du Directeur général à une réclamation dans un délai de quatre mois à partir du jour de l’introduction de celle-ci vaut par ailleurs lui-même décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal. Il n’y a pas lieu de déclarer la requête irrecevable pour tardiveté, en ce qu’elle est dirigée contre une décision de rejet implicite émanant du Directeur général. Statuer en sens contraire reviendrait en effet à priver indûment le requérant de son droit de saisir le Tribunal en raison du seul comportement de l’Organisation.
d) Le Tribunal observe que, bien que le non-respect par le requérant du délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours pour saisir le Tribunal ait été ci-dessus reconnu comme admissible en raison du fait qu’il lui avait été indiqué, à tort, par l’Organisation qu’il devait attendre une décision explicite, l’intéressé n’a finalement pas attendu l’intervention de cette décision pour introduire sa requête. Celle-ci devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement préalable des voies de recours internes prévue par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. Mais, en l’espèce, compte tenu du délai d’un an et sept mois qui s’était écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation du requérant, le 5 juin 2020, et le dépôt de sa requête, le 7 février 2022, et du fait que son conseil avait procédé, en vain, à des relances auprès du Directeur général, le Tribunal considère que le requérant était confronté à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de saisir directement le Tribunal. En effet, en vertu de la jurisprudence du Tribunal, un requérant est recevable à saisir directement le Tribunal d’une requête dirigée contre la décision initiale qu’il entend contester lorsque les organes compétents ne sont pas en mesure de statuer sur son recours interne dans un délai raisonnable au regard des circonstances de l’espèce, à condition qu’il ait vainement entrepris ce que l’on pouvait attendre de sa part en vue d’accélérer la procédure interne et qu’il ressorte de la situation constatée que l’autorité de recours n’était effectivement pas à même de rendre sa décision définitive dans un tel délai raisonnable (voir notamment les jugements 4660, au considérant 2, 4271, au considérant 5, 4268, aux considérants 10 et 11, 4200, au considérant 3, 3558, au considérant 9, 2039, au considérant 4, ou 1486, au considérant 11).
e) Le Tribunal relève, en outre, qu’une décision définitive a finalement été prise par le Directeur général en date du 12 mai 2022 et que cette décision a été produite en cours de procédure, de même que l’avis de la Commission paritaire des litiges y relatif. Dès lors que le Tribunal est en possession d’un dossier complet et que les parties ont eu la possibilité de s’exprimer pleinement dans leurs écritures au sujet de cette décision de rejet explicite de la réclamation du requérant du 5 juin 2020, et donc de la décision de rejet de la première plainte pour harcèlement en ce qu’elle était dirigée contre M. H. B., il estime que, conformément à sa jurisprudence, il y a lieu de requalifier la requête comme étant dirigée contre cette dernière décision du 12 mai 2022 (voir notamment, pour des cas de figure similaires, les jugements 4769, au considérant 3, 4768, au considérant 3, 4660, au considérant 6, 4065, au considérant 3, et 2786, au considérant 3).
La présente requête est par conséquent recevable en ce qu’elle met en cause la légalité de la décision du Directeur général du 12 mai 2022 de rejeter, comme infondée, la première plainte pour harcèlement moral dirigée contre M. P. H. C’est donc dans cette mesure qu’elle sera examinée par le Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that the Organization failed to order that she be reimbursed the amount of approximately 19,088 Swiss francs she had voluntarily repaid to the WTO on 13 March 2018 for the spouse allowance, the health insurance subsidy for 2015, and the home leave lump sums for 2016, pursuant to the finding of the OIO Report (some of which, she argues, she did not even lawfully owe). This claim seems inconsistent with the complainant’s former conduct, as she voluntarily offered to repay to the WTO the amounts which she had acknowledged were not owed to her. In any event, this is a new claim, submitted for the first time before the Tribunal, and it is, thus, irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; iloat statute; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4797
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the modifications made to the procedure for examining patent applications and contest the validity of the internal appeal proceedings.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Cases arise in the Tribunal where the defendant organisation has failed to consult a person or a body, which should have been consulted under the relevant rules, and the Tribunal may make orders which require that consultation take place and the Tribunal may also set aside the decision made without consultation (see, for example, Judgment 4230). But setting aside the decision is not an inevitable outcome following a conclusion that consultation should have, but did not, take place.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4230
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
Consideration 11
Extract:
In the present case, the failure to consult the GAC occurred over a decade ago. Indeed, as noted earlier, the GAC was abolished in 2014, almost a decade ago. It cannot now be consulted. There is a suggestion in the pleas of both the complainants and the EPO that the Notice is no longer in force. If so, this would be relevant and militate strongly against granting relief based on the failure to consult. But even if it is in force, it is not apparent to the Tribunal that the Notice’s continued implementation would cause any real prejudice or injury to the complainants or the staff of the Office more generally. In these circumstances, it is clearly not advisable to rescind the decision adopting and promulgating the Notice notwithstanding the failure to consult the GAC. However, while Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute contemplates the awarding of compensation there should be none in the present case. That is because a staff representative, bringing proceedings in that capacity, is not entitled to an award of moral damages (see Judgment 4575, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4575
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
Judgment 4129
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3975
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, the successors of a former official of the EPO who passed away, filed a complaint with the Tribunal, considering that there has been an implied decision to reject his internal appeals.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent authority for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; iloat statute; summary procedure;
Judgment 3974
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that his request for review of a decision of the Administrative Council has been implicitly rejected.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; iloat statute; summary procedure;
Judgment 3883
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[W]hat relief can be granted by the Tribunal is governed by Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute that confers and defines its jurisdiction. That provision clearly contemplates that if a complainant establishes that a decision was unlawfully made, the decision can be rescinded. [H]owever, it contemplates that if the rescission of a decision is not “advisable”, then the Tribunal “shall award the complainant compensation for the injury caused to her or him”. Plainly enough following this latter course depends on the opinion and assessment of the Tribunal in the exercise of what, in substance, is a discretionary power (see Judgment 1419, consideration 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1419
Keywords:
allowance; iloat statute;
Judgment 3714
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the implied decision of the President of the European Patent Office not to accept the findings of the Medical Committee concerning his invalidity.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute relevantly provides that “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it, the person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal and his complaint shall be receivable in the same manner as a complaint against a final decision”.
The “decision upon [a] claim” to which that provision refers does not necessarily mean the final decision on the claim. Indeed, as the Tribunal has often recalled, where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent advisory appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3552, consideration 2, 3456, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3356, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356, 3428, 3456, 3552
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal will not accept the complainants’ surprising argument that questions pertaining to the nature of the impugned decisions and their cause of action to request the setting aside thereof have no bearing on the receivability of their claims. According to the complainants, the only requirements regarding the receivability of complaints laid down by the Statute of the Tribunal are those mentioned in Article VII, namely that all internal means of redress must have been exhausted, that a final decision must have been taken and that the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal must have been respected. However, these rules concern only the procedural aspect of receivability. Receivability is also governed by Article II of the Statute, which, by defining the nature of disputes which the Tribunal has competence to hear ratione personae and ratione materiae, establishes further rules of receivability pertaining to the substantive aspect thereof. Thus a complaint will be receivable only if it is directed against a decision which is of a kind that may be challenged before the Tribunal and if it is filed by an official who shows a cause of action (see, among innumerable examples, Judgments 1756, under 5, 1786, under 5 and 6, 2379, under 5, or 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1786, 2379, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. Thus, the possibility of filing a complaint against an implied decision of rejection is governed solely by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that “[w]hen the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”, the person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal. Article 109 of the Service Regulations could not therefore apply here. Moreover, that article unlawfully provides for a period of “two months” which is different, albeit only slightly, from the sixty days specified in the Statute. When, before the expiry of the latter time limit, an organisation forwards an appeal to the competent advisory appeal body or takes any other action to deal with it, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal which forestalls an implied rejection that could be challenged before the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 2948 or 3034).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 109 du Statut des fonctionnaires
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;
Judgment 3426
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[E]ven if there is agreement, the Tribunal must still determine whether it is competent to hear the complaint under Article II of the Statute. As the competence of the Tribunal is statutory, it cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties or on consent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat statute;
Judgment 3302
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints were dismissed for non-exhaustion of internal remedies under Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2780, 2811, 2939
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; decision; delay; duty of care; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3225
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully asks for her short-term contracts to be converted into fixed-term contracts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaint form was filed within the time limit specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, albeit without the brief and supporting evidence which, according to Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal, had to be appended to it. Contrary to [the defendant]’s submissions, this does not signify that the complaint was submitted out of time, since paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article affords the complainant the possibility of correcting a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the Rules. In the instant case, the complaint was corrected on 30 March 2011, within the time limit set by the Registrar of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute; Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; date; formal requirements; iloat statute; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3139
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Union regrets that the internal appeal procedure [...] was not completed, but it raises no objection to receivability on that account.
The Tribunal automatically examines the receivability of complaints filed with it. [...]. In Judgment 2892, the Tribunal held that the provisions of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing internal appeals did not provide for appeals by former staff members. In such circumstances, where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process (see for example Judgment 2840, under 21). Hence the Tribunal will not find that the complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2892
Keywords:
former official; iloat statute; internal appeal; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3115
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"[T]he rule laid down in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal that internal means of redress must first be exhausted does not apply to a claim for compensation for moral injury, which constitutes a claim for consequential relief which the Tribunal has the power to grant in all circumstances (see Judgment 2609, under 10, or Judgment 2779, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2609, 2779
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 3060
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a "decision upon [the] claim" within the meaning of [Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal], which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgment 2948, under 7, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2948
Keywords:
claim; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3049
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to complaints filed by individuals who do not have the status of an official in the defendant organisations.
"The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, '[t]he 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 of any [...] international organization meeting the standards set out in the Annex hereto which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration recognizing, in accordance with its Constitution or internal administrative rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official of [the Organization] and is not covered by [the latter's] Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, in particular the provisions governing the internal appeal process, she has no access to this Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence; competence of tribunal; iloat; iloat statute; non official; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be emphasised in this respect that [...] the conditions governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. As was recently recalled in Judgment 2863, which was delivered in a case also concerning Eurocontrol, an rganisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal states that, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must […] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published”. It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 of the Staff Regulations to set a different time limit for filing a complaint by specifying that that limit is three months instead of ninety days. Moreover the Tribunal’s case law indicates that the time limit laid down in the above-mentioned Article VII, paragraph 2, starts to run on the day after, and not on the day on which, the impugned decision is taken (see, for example, Judgment 2244, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2244
Keywords:
iloat statute; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]ttention must be drawn to the fact that the rules concerning the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of lodging a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file a complaint “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. When an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681). As it is not disputed that, in the instant case, the Agency had forwarded the complainants’ internal complaints to the Joint Committee for Disputes within this prescribed period of time, the persons concerned were wrong in believing that they could challenge the implied rejection of these complaints.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
