Competence of Tribunal (102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Competence of Tribunal
Total judgments found: 463

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >

• Judgment 4601

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him after an internal complaint of harassment was made against him.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  The complainant also asks that, as a result of the impugned decision being set aside by the Tribunal, the WTO should be ordered to issue him with the badge provided to pensioners to enable him to participate in the activities of the WTO Pensioners’ Assembly. It is, however, clear from the case law that the Tribunal is not competent to make orders of that kind.
  This is all the more so given that the complainant does not point to any obligation on the WTO to issue the “pensioner” badge arising from the terms of his employment contract or under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal does not, therefore, in any event, have any competence in the matter, pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute.

  Keywords:

  access badge; competence of tribunal; former official; house ban; order to deliver a badge;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4598

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  The import of some of the pleas of WHO was that the Tribunal should, itself, determine whether the complainant’s conduct constituted misconduct. This is not the Tribunal’s role (see Judgments 4491, consideration 19, 4362, consideration 7, and 3831, consideration 28).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831, 4362, 4491
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  The complainant seeks other relief, namely that the Tribunal declare Ms M.’s harassment complaint as frivolous and cancel the IOS report. This is relief the Tribunal cannot grant even if grounds for granting that relief were made out.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; relief claimed;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4597

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary pursuant to the implementation of the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  WHO does not argue that the complaint is irreceivable but this is an issue the Tribunal can raise ex officio (see, for example, Judgment 4334, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4334
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant impugns three decisions, namely, the decision to introduce a unified salary scale, the decision to reduce the dependency allowance and the decision to alter the benefits payable by way of education grant. As noted earlier, these are general decisions. The complainant characterises the decision of the Director-General of 9 August 2019 as an individual decision. In some senses it is, in that it disposed of the complainant’s particular appeal brought as an individual staff member. However, this is not the focus of the case law. A relevant individual decision is one in which a general decision is applied to the particular circumstances of the complainant in a way that adversely affects the complainant. It is for this reason that many general decisions are challenged by reference to a payslip in which individual payments are made to a complainant who seeks to argue the relevant general decision underpinning the payment has adversely affected her or him (see, for example, Judgment 3614, consideration 12). By confining challenges to general decisions in this way, two related objectives are achieved. The first is that it requires the Tribunal to focus on the individual circumstances of the complainant, given that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction conferred by its Statute is substantially concerned with individual grievances. The second concerns relief. Generally, the Tribunal’s power to grant relief (see Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute) is limited to remedying the effect of an organisation’s unlawful conduct in relation to the complainant alone and not relief cast more broadly.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3614
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4585

  
  135th Session, 2023
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision made concerning the extent of his service-incurred disability, the date until which he should be paid compensation for disability, and the payment of the fees of the medical experts who examined his case.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has reviewed the ABCC’s report and the Medical Board’s reports. The Tribunal recalls its consistent precedent that it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to decide whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 5, and the judgments cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4237
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; medical board; medical opinion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4584

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  It should be noted [...] that the request for an investigation to be ordered with a view to the possible imposition of disciplinary penalties on particular staff members lies outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whose role is not, in any event, to issue orders of that kind (see, for example, Judgments 4439, consideration 4, 4291, consideration 10, or 3858, consideration 7).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3858, 4291, 4439
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4581

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Cocoa Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the amount paid to him by way of a termination indemnity.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Considerations 5-6

  Extract:

  The ICCO submits that as relations between the parties began and ended before the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not competent to hear this case. It is noteworthy that it was on 20 August 2019 that the Executive Director of the ICCO sent a request for recognition of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the Director-General of the International Labour Office. At its 337th Session, the ILO’s Governing Body approved that recognition with effect from 30 October 2019.
  Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organization concerned has addressed a declaration recognizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Inasmuch as the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at the time when the complainant filed his complaint on 10 December 2019, the Tribunal is competent to hear it pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4557

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the rejection of his request for a certificate from the medical adviser of the European Patent Office attesting to his efforts to obtain his old medical file.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; medical certificate;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal has consistently dismissed complaints that do not specifically allege a non-observance of the terms of appointment or the applicable staff regulations as referred to in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4317, consideration 4, and 4458, consideration 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4317, 4458
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant has requested an oral hearing. However, in view of the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction, which he could not effectively have challenged, this request must be dismissed as being without object.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; oral proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4551

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest modifications made with respect to the use of mass emails within the Office.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  Insofar as the complainants essentially ask the Tribunal to order the EPO to modify its rules concerning the use of mass communications, their claims are irreceivable. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make such orders (see Judgment 2793, consideration 21).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2793
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; order to modify internal rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4548

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant claims compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered because she was not re-hired by the ILO.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  It is firmly established in the case law that “although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official’s terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case” (see Judgment 2903, consideration 11; see also Judgments 4201, consideration 3, and 4219, consideration 17).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2903, 4201, 4219
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; former official;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; external candidate; former official; ratione personae;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4540

  
  134th Session, 2022
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from its Statute. In an early case it was described as “a [c]ourt of limited jurisdiction [...] bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence” (see Judgment 67, consideration 3). One of the Tribunal’s central roles, founded on Article II of the Statute, is to enforce compliance with staff regulations where they have not been observed. The touchstone of its jurisdiction is, in this respect, lawfully adopted staff regulations or rules of international organisations. The provisions in the staff regulations and rules are the starting point in the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Staff Rule 1230.7.2 which provides that the final decision in an appeal is made by the Director, must be respected and given full effect. The Director was authorised to make the decision in the appeal in the present case and her decision was not tainted by illegality as alleged by the complainant.
  Cases do arise in the Tribunal where the decision appealed against and the decision in the appeal are made by the same person, but the latter decision involves a rejection of recommendations of the appeal body. The discussion in the preceding consideration is not intended to suggest that in such cases there is no real scrutiny by the Tribunal of that latter decision and the reasons given. To the contrary, there is. The Tribunal’s case law is replete with examples where the motivation for the rejection has been found to be inadequate and the decision in the appeal has been set aside (see, for example, Judgments 4427, consideration 10, 4259, considerations 11 and 12, and 4062, consideration 4). This approach has the effect of respecting rules conferring, ordinarily, on the executive head of an organisation the power to make the final decision in an appeal even if an appeal from a decision of that person, while recognising the vitally important role appeal bodies play and the need to give considerable weight to findings and recommendations they make.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 4062, 4259, 4427
  

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; competence of tribunal; conflict of interest; final decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4512

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his grievance complaint against Mr H. and to close the case.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1899, in consideration 3, “[d]isciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one.” Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Tribunal’s consistent case law has it that ordering that disciplinary action be taken against an alleged harasser is, in any event, outside its jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 4313, consideration 11, 4241, consideration 4, 3318, consideration 12, and 2811, consideration 15). The Tribunal finds that the complainant’s allegations and claims based on the ICC’s failure to impose disciplinary measures against Mr H. are irreceivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4313
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4502

  
  134th Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant’s request that the reclassification of her post at grade P-2 “be ordered with retrospective effect from 2 December 2008” is unfounded. Furthermore, this request is irreceivable in any event, as it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to make orders of this kind against organisations (see, for example, Judgment 3834, consideration 6).
  

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3834
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; order a post classification;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4486

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  It is to be recalled that there is established jurisprudence of the Tribunal that generally the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on electoral processes relating to staff associations (see, for example, Judgments 78 and 2636).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 78, 2636
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; request to deal with issues internal to staff association;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4480

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a personal promotion in the 2015 exercise.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal has no jurisdiction to [...] order [a promotion] (see, for example, Judgment 4377, consideration 2).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4377
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; order a promotion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4471

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order an organisation to take disciplinary action against an official (see Judgment 4241, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; order to impose disciplinary sanctions; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  Consideration 23

  Extract:

  Among his various claims, the complainant asks to be provided with the complete preliminary investigation report. The Tribunal notes that the Organisation has already disclosed various parts thereof to the complainant. However, [...] it was in fact required to disclose the entire report, even if that meant redacting it to the extent necessary to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, in particular to protect the interests of third parties. The Tribunal will therefore make such an order.
  The complainant also requests access to all “testimony and interviews gathered”. However, given the requirement of confidentiality [...], the Tribunal will not grant this request.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; confidentiality; order to communicate a report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4458

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks the setting aside of the information circular which, according to her, announced the closure of the UNESCO Commissary.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; facilities; general decision; ratione materiae;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  In his [...] letter [...] responding to UNESCO’s final observations, counsel for the complainant submits that a decision to decline jurisdiction would result in “a flagrant denial of justice on account of the lack of alternative remedies”. However, even though it may prove impossible to settle the dispute in another jurisdiction, that risk cannot allow the Tribunal to rule on a complaint which does not fall within its own jurisdiction. It should be borne in mind that, as the Tribunal has always made clear since its earliest judgments, its jurisdiction is limited and, as such, it is “bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence” (see Judgment 67, consideration 3, or, more recently, Judgment 2657, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 2657
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; denial of justice; vested competence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4439

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4432

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to accept only part of the recommendations of the Appeals Committee on his appeal against the postponement of a strike ballot by the President of the European Patent Office.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [T]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to address alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of a member of the staff of an international organisation or the non-observance of the Staff Regulations “as are applicable to the case” (Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute). If non-observance of a Staff Regulation (or other applicable normative legal document) is conceded before the proceedings in the Tribunal are commenced (in this case non-observance of paragraph 3 of Circular No. 347), there is no justiciable issue about non-observance for the Tribunal to determine. At least ordinarily, the reasons for the concession are irrelevant to the issue of non-observance.

  Keywords:

  claim moot; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4430

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  In these proceedings the complainants seek relief that, in substance, involves a declaration that CA/D 5/13 and Circular No. 347 are each unlawful and that each should be set aside. As to the Circular, the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to its case law and its Statute, that it has jurisdiction to declare the Circular unlawful and set it aside (see, for example, Judgments 2857, 3522 and 3513). The position is not so clear in relation to CA/D 5/13 which, if it were set aside, would likely have the legal effect of setting aside current (at least as at the time the proceedings in the Tribunal were commenced) provisions of the Service Regulations. While the Tribunal can examine the lawfulness of provisions of a general decision (see, for example, Judgments 92, consideration 3, 2244, consideration 8, and 4274, consideration 4), whether it has jurisdiction to set aside a provision of the Service Regulations is a significant legal question on which the Tribunal’s case law is unclear. It should be resolved in an appropriate case by a plenary panel of the Tribunal constituted by seven judges, which is not presently possible.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 92, 2244, 2857, 3513, 3522, 4274
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; general decision; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4422

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainants question aspects of the Tribunal’s case law and previous judgments. Mr K., in particular, refers to attempts he made to reach an amicable settlement in various cases he had with the EPO. He also seems to suggest that the Tribunal should report an allegation which he makes in his additional submissions to the German authorities. The Tribunal will not advert to these and other statements which are outside the scope of the present complaints.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; internal remedies not exhausted;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >