Application for execution (5,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Application for execution
Total judgments found: 108
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 2880
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Application for execution of Judgment 2706 - In Judgment 2706 the Tribunal ordered the Organization inter alia to review the classification of the complainant's post and, if appropriate, to promote her. As a result of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years, the complainant was not promoted. The Tribunal granted the application for execution and ordered that the application for promotion be properly considered.
"The Tribunal [...] wishes to clarify [...] the meaning of the phrase "le cas échéant" in the authoritative French text of its orders in Judgment 2706. Having regard to the context in which it is used and the instructions given by the Tribunal in Judgment 2706, under 15, it is clear that the order means that "if the required conditions are met" or "in such a case" the complainant is to be promoted. That is, the Director General is to base his decision on relevant materials, namely the proposals of the Classification Committee and the Promotion Advisory Board."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
application for execution; order; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2721
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal again emphasises that it is essential that both salaries and pensions be paid punctually and in full, if only on account of the precise commitments which beneficiaries may have to honour on a daily basis (see Judgment 2381, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2381
Keywords:
application for execution; organisation's duties; payment; pension; salary;
Judgment 2533
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant suffered a workplace injury at the Organization premises. The results of this seemingly minor accident were catastrophic and the complainant is now permanently and totally disabled and suffers from a rare illness, which has extended up both of the complainant's legs and requires him to use a wheelchair.
"The absence of an indexation clause [of the "disability pension"], however, does not remove the defendant's obligation to provide the complainant with adequate compensation. The concern that the utility of the award may be reduced through spoliation is very real and could, in times of high inflation, conceivably, have the effect of negating the very purpose of the disability pension which is to make the complainant whole despite his service-related injury. That is only a possibility, however, and the Tribunal is reluctant to order indexation as a matter of routine when the feared spoliation may never occur to an extent significant enough to seriously affect the complainant's position. Exceptionally, the Tribunal will frame its order in such a way that the complainant may apply at a future date for an adjustment to any ongoing pension payments when and if the purchasing power of such payments has been reduced by at least 10 per cent. Such applications should be by way of request for the execution of the present judgment."
Keywords:
adjustment; application for execution; cost-of-living increase; disability benefit; handicapped person; invalidity; organisation's duties; professional accident; reckoning; service-incurred;
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 2277
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"An application for execution presupposes that the complainant is able to challenge an act or an omission by the organisation that employs him which is subsequent to the judgment concerned and contrary to the terms of the ruling. [T]he complainant [...] merely reiterates pleas and facts which preceded the judgments [of which he seeks execution], which are now res judicata and cannot be challenged."
Keywords:
application for execution; decision; omission; organisation's duties; res judicata;
Judgment 2185
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal gave the organisation the choice between reinstating the complainant or paying her a compensation. "The organization clearly chose not to reinstate the complainant. Consequently, the complainant's claim for reinstatement is irreceivable. It should also be noted that since [the organization] applied the second option of [that] judgment [...] to the complainant, she cannot seek to benefit from the first option as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1553
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; claim; decision; enforcement; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reinstatement;
Judgment 2178
94th Session, 2003
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal ordered that he be compensated because he had been wrongfully terminated. In his application for review of that judgment "the complainant seeks compensation in respect of the loss of the tax immunities he enjoyed by virtue of the agreement between the [...] authorities [of the host country] and the [organisation]. Since the complainant has not been reinstated in his post, he is no longer entitled to those immunities. Nor is he entitled to compensation for the loss thereof: the tax regime governing the exemptions he may claim is solely a matter for the competent authorities of the host state, and the [organisation] cannot be held liable for direct or indirect taxes owed by the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; domestic law; headquarters agreement; judgment of the tribunal; privileges and immunities; reconstruction of career; reinstatement; request by a party; tax;
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 2065
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."
Keywords:
application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2016
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As emphasised by the [organisation], the applicable interim Staff Rules provide that the education grant is calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. The complainant cannot therefore claim grants calculated on the hypothetical basis of the costs that would have been incurred had he remained in service."
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; burden of proof; condition; education expenses; evidence; family allowance;
Judgment 1978
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The case law has it that the exhaustion of all internal remedies is not necessary before filing an application for execution. However, the possibility of direct recourse to the Tribunal does not exclude first lodging an internal appeal (see Judgment 1887, [...] under 5, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An application for execution may only address issues covered by the initial judgment, which carries the authority of res judicata (see Judgment 1887 [...] under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; general principle; res judicata; same cause of action;
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 1797
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
"The Organization pleads that it is under no duty to pay contributions for [the complainant] to the Pension Fund or to the staff health insurance plan and would have had such duty only if he had been reinstated [...]. The Tribunal ruled on a similar issue in Judgment 1338 [...], in which it held that its award [...] of damages equivalent to 'the amount of the salary, allowances and other entitlements [the complainant] would have received' had not required reinstatement in the Pension Fund or health insurance."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1338
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; case law; contribution rate; contributions; enforcement; health insurance; insurance; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; reinstatement; salary; social benefits; unjspf;
Judgment 1792
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Someone who intervenes in a complaint [...] may not put forward any pleas but the complainant's. The intervener must have the same claims as the complainant and seek the same redress on the strength of the same pleas." (See Judgments 365 and 366.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365, 366
Keywords:
application for execution; claim; complaint; difference; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; new claim; new plea;
Judgment 1784
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Under Manual paragraph I.2.510 the Organization is empowered to require that the original bills be attached to the form that the staff member must fill up to claim the education grant. It does not have to accept evidence of the sort the complainant is offering. It will evaluate any alternative proof he may produce in the absence of the bills. Original documents must have gone astray before, and it is often possible to reconstitute them. It is up to the Organization to decide - subject to review by the Tribunal - whether the proof offered is satisfactory."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH I.2.510 OF WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; allowance; application for execution; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; education expenses; evidence; judicial review; lack of evidence;
Judgment 1783
85th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"When the Tribunal quashes a flawed decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment it has discretion as to the relief it grants. It may send the case back for a new decision by the Organisation on renewal [...] but if it considers that renewal would be only fair, it will, instead of ordering a new decision, actually order reinstatement under a new contract for an appropriate term. [...] But if it considers neither a new decision nor reinstatement to be possible or advisable, it may, as authorised by Article VIII of its Statute, award the complainant compensation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; case sent back to organisation; compensation; contract; decision quashed; duration of appointment; effect; fixed-term; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement; subsidiary;
Judgment 1717
84th Session, 1998
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Interpretation depends both on the context and on the nature of the text. [...] Judgment 1614 used the word [pay] to determine the amount of damages and ordered the fund to pay [the complainant] what she would have earned for six months' service. So 'pay' means the amount she would have actually received had she been under contract for those six months, and it must include salary and any allowances payable to her of whatever kind - post adjustment, family allowance, and so forth. It does not, however, include the compulsory health insurance and other contributions that were routinely docked from her emoluments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1614
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; application for interpretation; definition; interpretation; salary; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
