Settlement out of court (98,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Settlement out of court
Total judgments found: 59
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 2584
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2370
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."
Keywords:
claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;
Judgment 2366
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Ordinarily, the process of decision making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. Occasionally however, what appears to be a single and final decision may embody more than one decision. That will be the case if separate and distinct issues have to be decided. So, too, a decision which does not resolve an entire dispute may nonetheless constitute a final decision if it is a decision on a separate and distinct issue. The present is such a case."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; decision; definition; difference; general principle; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
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 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"The Tribunal may, when setting aside a flawed decision not to renew a contract, order renewal for an appropriate term, as was done in Judgments 1298 and 1633. But it does so only if that is clearly the fair course to take. That was the situation in Judgment 1633 where, in practical terms, the question for decision was not whether a contract should be renewed but whether it should be renewed for two or for five years."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1298, 1633
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; contract; decision; equity; flaw; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; non-renewal of contract; period; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [EMBL] Staff Rules and Regulations do not provide an internal appeal mechanism for a person in the complainant's position. The Tribunal has frequently commented on the desirability and utility of internal appeal procedures which not only make the Tribunal's task easier but also substantially reduce its workload by bringing a satisfactory and less expensive resolution to many disputes at an earlier stage. In any case, the Tribunal remains the ultimate arbiter of the rights of international civil servants and it can, and will, exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; last instance; no provision; official; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; right; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. "Sound judicial policy requires that the Tribunal encourage parties to settle their disputes after as well as before judgment. That cannot happen if persons, like the complainant, who did not participate in a case, even though he might have done so, can interfere after the fact and prevent such settlement."
Keywords:
complainant; execution of judgment; general principle; iloat; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; request by a party; right; settlement out of court; status of complainant;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1938
88th Session, 2000
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The fact that the [Organization] did not itself invoke [the] arbitration clause during the internal appeals procedure does not prejudice the fact that the two parties freely accepted recourse to arbitration to settle disputes arising out of the application of contractual service agreements, thereby perforce excluding them from the Tribunal's jurisdiction."
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; internal appeal; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1924
88th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant accepted a settlement proposal by the organization within the imposed deadline. However, four months went by and he heard nothing more on the subject so he wrote to inquire when the settlement would be effected. One month later he was informed that the organization had learned that certain costs would be higher than it had foreseen, therefore, it preferred that the dispute be decided by the Administrative Tribunal. "Efforts made for the resolution of disputes are to be encouraged and the principle of good faith requires that if an offer is accepted the other party cannot then withdraw from it. The offer [...] should, accordingly, be implemented."
Keywords:
acceptance; good faith; intention of parties; offer; offer withdrawn; organisation's duties; promise; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1847
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The question of both legal and translation costs is entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal. Where a valid, sufficient and binding offer to settle is made by a defendant in the course of proceedings, and the complainant continues with the complaint in the face of such an offer, the Tribunal may well deny costs. The Tribunal also notes that in the present case the complainant filed her internal appeal almost immediately and without apparently requesting information from the defendant or from [the insurance company] as to the progress of her claim: she appears to be more interested in litigation than in dealing in good faith with her employer. Parties and their legal advisers should be encouraged to settle their claims and dissuaded from time-wasting disputation."
Keywords:
case pending; costs; good faith; no award of costs; settlement out of court; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1699
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"The Tribunal does not accept that a request for review precludes a negotiated settlement. There is no reason why a staff member cannot keep to the time limit laid down by the Staff Regulations and Rules and at the same time negotiate. And he will be in a stronger negotiating position if he has lodged a timely appeal."
Keywords:
internal appeal; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1126
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The complainant originally claimed 5001 French francs which she said were mistakenly deducted from her termination indemnity. The Organization having acknowledged its mistake, it paid her the disputed amount after she had filed her complaint. Under the circumstances the Tribunal need not entertain the claim. However, she is entitled to an award of costs.
Keywords:
case pending; costs; no cause of action; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1100
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant challenged the reckoning of her pension in the internal appeal. Having obtained satisfaction after she filed her complaint she withdrew her main claims but presses her claim to moral damages and costs. The Tribunal considers her complaint premature because it challenges a decision which was stated to be provisional, and the withdrawal of her main claim makes her claim to damages void. Nor is she entitled to costs.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case pending; cause of action; no cause of action; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1097
71st Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal contained a claim to a certificate of service in keeping with the Staff Rules. She got one before filing her complaint and therefore has no cause of action.
Keywords:
cause of action; certificate of service; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1058
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The basis for the complaint being the staff report for 1984 and that report having been withdrawn, there is no need to rule on the claims filed by the complainant, who has obtained satisfaction. The Tribunal will nevertheless make an award of costs because at the time of filing the complaint was warranted."
Keywords:
case pending; cause of action; complaint; costs; exception; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1043
69th Session, 1990
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant submitted an application for execution of Judgment 922 that set aside the decision to dismiss him. The UPU subsequently notified the Tribunal that it had reversed the decision and would offer the complainant compensation. The Tribunal took note of the Union's undertaking and awarded him 10,000 Swiss francs in damages for all the forms of injury he sustained and 1,000 francs towards costs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 922
Keywords:
application for execution; case pending; cause of action; costs; injury; material damages; moral injury; no cause of action; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1042
69th Session, 1990
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
After the UPU notified the reversal of its decision to dismiss the complainant, he no longer had any cause of action. He is nevertheless entitled to an award of costs.
Keywords:
case pending; cause of action; costs; no cause of action; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1003
68th Session, 1990
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Before the complaint was filed the Organisation went back on its decision to dismiss him and replaced it by a reprimand. Since the decision "has been withdrawn and has had no effect on his career there is no cause of action and his complaint is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 792
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
