Threat (821,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Threat
Total judgments found: 4

• Judgment 4737

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Energy Charter Conference
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.

  Considerations 15-17

  Extract:

  In its brief, seemingly prepared by lawyers, the organisation said in the fifth paragraph of the introduction (and concerning the receivability of the complaint):
  “Finally, the Organisation considers the case to be of wider importance in that hearing the Complainant’s case could set an undesirable precedent for the executive heads of other international organisations that might want to challenge the political considerations governing their re-appointments before the Tribunal. Such a precedent might prompt some international organisations to reconsider the jurisdiction conferred to the Tribunal with regard to employees that depend on its jurisdiction for the protection of their rights.”
  […]
  Observations recently made by the Tribunal in Judgment 4079 are equally apt to apply to the above submission. The Tribunal said at consideration 17:
  “This is a subtle threat to the Tribunal but a threat nonetheless. As an independent judicial body, the Tribunal is constituted by judges who must act without fear or favour. Such a threat must be ignored. Also, the threat if acted upon would subvert the operation of the rule of law at an international level. That is because dissatisfaction with a judgment lawfully rendered by a judicial body should never ground the rejection of the jurisdiction of that body. This is unacceptable behaviour by an international organization. The disdain the organization shows for the orderly resolution of justiciable disputes subverts the very institutions established to resolve them and the framework within which they operate.”
  The submission quoted above should never have been made.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4079
  

  Keywords:

  threat;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4433

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to treat his participation in a strike as an unauthorised absence.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [T]he threat [in question] did involve an attempt to intimidate the complainant, aggravated by the adoption by the EPO of an erroneous interpretation of its own normative legal documents. It involved an attempt to stifle, by threat, the exercise of the lawful right to strike. The complainant is, for this, entitled to moral damages assessed in the sum of 4,000 euros.

  Keywords:

  moral injury; right to strike; strike; threat;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4079

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  In its pleas the UPU submits that “the UPU must stress that the [Tribunal]’s decision clearly falls outside its purview and seeks to call into question the mandate and authority of the [Council of Administration] as the sovereign governing body of the UPU between Congresses. If upheld, the Administration will have no choice but to take the matter to that governing body, which may lead to significant implications of a wider character, including a review by UPU member countries of remedial mechanisms available to staff members for impugning decisions of the [Director General]” (emphasis added). This is a subtle threat to the Tribunal but a threat nonetheless. As an independent judicial body, the Tribunal is constituted by judges who must act without fear or favour. Such a threat must be ignored. Also, the threat if acted upon would subvert the operation of the rule of law at an international level. That is because dissatisfaction with a judgment lawfully rendered by a judicial body should never ground the rejection of the jurisdiction of that body. This is unacceptable behaviour by an international organization. The disdain the organization shows for the orderly resolution of justiciable disputes subverts the very institutions established to resolve them and the framework within which they operate. That is even more so as the organization’s understanding of the judgment in question is misconceived.

  Keywords:

  threat;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4077

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  In its pleas the UPU submits that “the UPU must stress that the [Tribunal] has made a decision which clearly sits outside its purview and seeks to call into question the mandate and authority of the [Council of Administration] as the sovereign governing body of the UPU between Congresses. If upheld, the Administration will have no choice but to take the matter to that governing body, as the [Director General] is in no way authorized to rescind [Council of Administration] decisions. Such an outcome might even lead to significant political implications of a wider character, including a review by UPU member countries of remedial mechanisms available to staff members for impugning decisions of the [Director General]” (emphasis added). This is a subtle threat to the Tribunal but a threat nonetheless. As an independent judicial body, the Tribunal is constituted by judges who must act without fear or favour. Such a threat must be ignored. Also, the threat if acted upon would subvert the operation of the rule of law at an international level. That is because dissatisfaction with a judgment lawfully rendered by a judicial body should never ground the rejection of the jurisdiction of that body. This is unacceptable behaviour by an international organization. The disdain the organization shows for the orderly resolution of justiciable disputes subverts the very institutions established to resolve them and the framework within which they operate. That is even more so as the organization’s understanding of the judgment in question is misconceived.

  Keywords:

  application for review; competence of tribunal; threat;