Tribunal (101, 106, 107, 963,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Tribunal
Total judgments found: 122
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 4705
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4274.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal is not required to explain systematically why it may deem necessary in a case to depart from a comparable precedent [...].
Keywords:
discretion; tribunal;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, an organisation may not in good faith end someone's appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]t is not the Tribunal's role to engage in fact-finding and to make a determination on the question of culpability. Instead, the Tribunal's role is to assess whether the decision taken by the Director General is well founded."
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; tribunal;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that under the WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules 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. In these circumstances, a former staff member has recourse to the Tribunal (see Judgment 2582 and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the present case, the Secretary-General took a new decision to refer the question of the recognition of domestic partnership to the ITU Council and thereby executed Judgment 2643. There is no basis on which the Tribunal can require anything further, save on a receivable complaint with respect to that new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2643
Keywords:
decision; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; limits; tribunal;
Judgment 2594
102nd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to make recommendations to an organisation regarding the implementation of specific procedures on workplace harassment and to order an organisation to make an apology."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; harassment; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; tribunal;
Judgment 2440
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
If a staff member withdraws some of his/her claims during the internal appeal procedure, he/she cannot raise them before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
claim; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; tribunal;
Judgment 2427
99th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Judgment 2297
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. "In accordance with the established case law of all international administrative tribunals, the Tribunal reaffirms that the independence of international civil servants is an essential guarantee, not only for the civil servants themselves, but also for the proper functioning of international organisations. In the case of heads of organisations, that independence is protected, inter alia, by the fact that they are appointed for a limited term of office. To concede that the authority in which the power of appointment is vested - in this case the Conference of the States parties of the Organisation - may terminate that appointment in its unfettered discretion, would constitute an unacceptable violation of the principles on which international organisations' activities are founded [...], by rendering officials vulnerable to pressures and to political change. The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appointment; breach; case law; condition; discretion; exception; executive body; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; hidden disciplinary measure; iloat; independence; internal appeals body; limits; member state; official; organisation; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment; tribunal;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The organization has a discretion to assess, in the context of its relations with a Member State, which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether it is appropriate to lift the immunity from legal process of its employees (see in this respect Judgments 933 and 1543)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 933, 1543
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; member state; organisation; privileges and immunities; tribunal; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Most contracts are entered into because both parties think it is to their economic advantage to do so. Where there is great disparity in bargaining power [...] the law will impose constraints upon the more powerful. In the international civil service that is one of the functions of the staff rules, and where these are inadequate, the Tribunal will intervene to redress the balance through the application of general principles of international civil service law."
Keywords:
contract; difference; enforcement; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; right; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;
Judgment 2076
91st Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was promoted with retroactive effect. "The complainant claims interest on the amounts the organization owes him. [Since it] agreed to promote him to G.5 with retroactive effect to 1 September 1997 [...] it should have paid him each month from that date the salary and entitlements corresponding to grade G.5. He is therefore entitled to interest, which the Tribunal sets at 8 per cent a year on those monthly earnings from each due date as from 1 September 1997."
Keywords:
date; debt; effective date; grade; interest on damages; promotion; request by a party; salary; tribunal;
Judgment 2062
91st Session, 2001
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal's practice is to consider any items that are material to the case".
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; practice; submissions; tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not use [the confidential documents submitted by the organisation] to the complainant's detriment unless he has had the opportunity to see them beforehand".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; right to reply; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 2008
90th Session, 2001
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[The organization] submits that the Tribunal is not competent to entertain the complaint because, having left [the organization] many years ago the complainant is not in a position to assert any statutory or contractual rights: he benefited from a special extra-statutory arrangement made ex gratia and may not assert for his family any right arising under the terms of his appointment. The objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction fails: [the organization] allowed its former employee to retain coverage by a health insurance scheme which he had originally been able to join only because of his employment relationship with [it]. Whether the continued protection he was granted albeit ex gratia may also be extended to his family can be determined only by ascertaining his rights as a former employee of the organization."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; ex gratia; extension of contract; health insurance; locus standi; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; right; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 1964
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; locus standi; medical examination; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 1894
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."
Keywords:
evidence; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical expenses; staff member's duties; tribunal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
