Force majeure (192,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Force majeure
Total judgments found: 7

• Judgment 3846

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant objects to the working conditions to which she was subjected during a secondment and contends that the ITU breached the rules on performance appraisals.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal is of the opinion that, as the [organisation] itself recognises, the events to which the Appeal Board referred do not constitute “extraneous, unforeseeable and compelling factors”. The defendant organisation may not therefore rely on force majeure to justify a failure to comply with the time limit for the submission of the Board’s report. In this case, however, this flaw had no practical implications and hence does not warrant an award of damages.

  Keywords:

  force majeure; internal appeal; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2722

  
  105th Session, 2008
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
  

  Keywords:

  breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2183

  
  94th Session, 2003
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  "The principle of the confidentiality of private messages stored in a professional e-mail account must be observed [...] In the event that access to an e-mail account becomes necessary for reasons of urgency or because of the prolonged absence of the account holder, it must be possible for organisations to open the account using appropriate technical safeguards. That state of necessity, justifying access to data which may be confidential, must be assessed with the utmost care."

  Keywords:

  discretion; force majeure; general principle; leave; official; organisation; organisation's duties; safeguard;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1466

  
  80th Session, 1996
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "Precedent has it that a time limit is a matter of objective fact and begins to run when a decision is notified. [...] The only exceptions that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the decision (see Judgment 21 [...]) and where the defendant has misled him or withheld some document from him in breach of good faith (see Judgment 752)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 752
  

  Keywords:

  case law; exception; force majeure; good faith; organisation; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 664

  
  56th Session, 1985
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  The material rule "exempts the case of force majeure. The [organisation] submits that [...] the complainant may not allege [force majeure] in the circumstances and that, even if it were established, the President would have discretion in the matter which he exercised correctly. The last part of the argument is mistaken: if there was force majeure the President was bound to accept the consequences in law."

  Keywords:

  discretion; force majeure; judicial review;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The plea will not succeed if he who alleges force majeure was himself responsible for the occurrence. thus it must fail where he was himself negligent or, though not negligent, put himself in such a position as to incur risk of the occurrence. Moreover, the plea will fail even if there is no direct and necessary link between the victim's behaviour and the occurrence." Thus, while indulging in a sport like skiing does not constitute negligence, there is no force majeure in the event of an accident during the practice of such a sport.

  Keywords:

  cause; complainant; force majeure; liability; professional accident;
  

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  The Service Regulations provide for the date on which an appointment takes effect not to be prior to the date on which the official takes up his duties except in case of force majeure. This is "a corollary of the general rule that a unilateral act may not be retroactive." The organisation held "the belief that one term of the contract which governed relations between the two sides had proved unenforceable because of an incident beyond its control." The complainant, who had been injured in an accident, was not fit to report for duty on the date she was due to start; there was not force majeure.

  Keywords:

  appointment; contract; date; exception; force majeure; professional accident;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 339

  
  40th Session, 1978
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 11-12

  Extract:

  There is nothing to suggest that the organization did not at the time of the contract intend to commit itself. The letter announcing the cancellation did not suggest that there had never been any commitment. The reason given was the financial situation of another body which was said to constitute a case of force majeure [...]. This point has not been pursued. the document constituted a contract for a conditional appointment.

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; condition; contract; force majeure; grounds; intention of parties; offer; offer withdrawn; organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 21

  
  5th Session, 1955
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration on receivability

  Extract:

  "Whereas the complaint was not submitted within the period of time of 90 days provided in the Regulations running from the date on which the decision impugned was taken [...], such was due to the transfer of the complainant to hospital [...] the complainant could only take cognizance of this decision at the conclusion of her hospitalization [...]. She brought her complaint in due form within ninety days from that date [...]. The organization does not [...] plead non-receivability following the late notification of the complaint; the delay is clearly due to vis major".

  Keywords:

  complaint; exception; force majeure; health reasons; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;