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 4409

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  application for interpretation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed;
  

  Considerations 3-5

  Extract:

  It should be noted that OTIF, by a decision adopted by its Administrative Committee at its session on 27 and 28 June 2017 and notified by its Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
  In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, as set out in Judgments 1043, consideration 3, and 4141, considerations 2 to 4, that withdrawal took effect on the date of the deliberation of the Governing Body of the ILO taking note of the decision in question, which in the present case took place on 13 March 2018.
  Although the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the complaint that gave rise to Judgment 4215, which had been filed before that date and which OTIF had expressly excluded from the scope of its withdrawal decision, since that date, the Tribunal has no longer been competent to hear new complaints against that Organisation.
  However, it must be considered that, where, as in this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment. The Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its judgments, should that be necessary. For similar reasons, the Tribunal also remains competent to hear applications for execution or review that may be brought in respect of a judgment delivered in the same circumstances.
  Notwithstanding the date on which it was filed, this application does therefore fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and it is noted that the Organisation does not raise any objections on this point in its reply.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215
  

  Keywords:

  application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4403

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for additional compensation for the injuries suffered in connection with the performance of his contract and to deny him access to the internal appeal process.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; non official; ratione personae;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The fact that consultants are defined […] as staff members for purposes of the Compensation Plan insurance only does not sustain a conclusion that a consultant covered by this insurance policy is an official for the purposes of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Consultants like the complainant were not.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; insurance; non official; ratione personae;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4402

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

  Considerations 4-6

  Extract:

  Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.
  
  The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.
  
  The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3861
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4391

  
  131st Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  Inasmuch as no evidence was provided that the Promotion Board had recommended his promotion retroactive to 2008, and keeping in mind that it is not within the Tribunal’s purview to order the promotion of an official (see Judgments 4066, consideration 11, and 4040, consideration 2), the complainant is entitled to material damages for the loss of a valuable opportunity to be promoted. The EPO will be ordered to pay the complainant a lump-sum amount equivalent to the cumulative amount of the additional salaries and all other benefits that he would have been entitled to receive through his monthly payslips, had he been promoted in the 2012 exercise, until the date of his retirement.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4040, 4066
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; loss of opportunity; material damages; promotion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4377

  
  131st Session, 2021
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant alleges that he was promised promotion to grade D-2.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  As regards the complainant’s request for retroactive promotion to grade D-2 from 1 September 2003, the Tribunal points out that it is not for it, in any event, to order that an official be promoted (see Judgments 3999, consideration 9, and 4066, consideration 11). This claim will therefore be dismissed at the outset as irreceivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3999, 4066
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; promotion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4376

  
  131st Session, 2021
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges WIPO’s alleged failure to take appropriate measures to protect him under its Whistleblower Protection Policy after he had made a report of misconduct.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant’s claim to be granted a fixed-term contract is rejected, first, because the Tribunal has no competence to make such an order. The appointment of the staff members of an international organization is within the exclusive power of the appointing authority of the organization concerned. Secondly, in an international organization where, as a rule, appointments are to be made following a competitive recruitment process, the granting of an appointment cannot be an appropriate form of compensation, because it infringes the rights of other persons who would otherwise have been entitled to compete for the subject position.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; fixed-term;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4373

  
  131st Session, 2021
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The complainant has requested a letter from the Director-General apologizing and clearing him of all charges. However, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, it is not competent to make orders of this kind (see, for example, Judgments 3069, consideration 5, and 4215, consideration 27).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069, 4215
  

  Keywords:

  apology; competence of tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4363

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [I]t is not within the Tribunal’s purview to extend the complainant’s appointment.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4329

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official of the EPO, requested the President of the Office to provide him with a written declaration affirming that he was not a target of certain practices alleged in press articles.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.
  The complainant requested the President of the Office to provide him with a written declaration affirming that he was not a target of certain practices alleged in press articles. There is no obligation in the Service Regulations for the President to issue such a declaration and therefore the decision not to grant such a request does not amount to “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.
  Similarly, the complainant did not affirm that his home equipment was illegally monitored. In fact, his allegation that his equipment at home was monitored by the EPO is purely hypothetical and he asks that this hypothetical violation should cease. Again, he does not allege “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4326

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Cocoa Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns a decision that was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4325

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Cocoa Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns a decision that was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organisation concerned has addressed a declaration recognising the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Although, as stated in consideration 2 above, these requirements have been met in this case, the decision impugned by the complainant was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which, moreover, it did not do until well after the expiry of the “ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned” in which complaints must be filed pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; late filing;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4303

  
  130th Session, 2020
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant [...] appears to argue that the amount awarded by way of moral damages was inadequate, though she contests the notion that it is merely a question of amount and submits that it involves, additionally, recognition of “lifelong harm done”. But the relief the Tribunal can provide is confined to “compensation for injury” in accordance with the terms of Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4301

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to withdraw a vacancy notice and re-advertise it, and the ad interim appointment of a colleague in the meantime.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [T]he contested changes were intended to satisfy the need to strengthen the core human potential and expertise of the NE Department concentrating more on nuclear energy specialists whose positions require special areas of knowledge. The modification of the university specialization was consistent with the pursued objective. It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to review the organizational programmatic choices of the Agency.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; organisation's interest; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4295

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to impose a disciplinary measure against him.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [A] ruling by an internal appeal body on its own competence or the final decision maker’s acceptance of the ruling cannot give the Tribunal competence to hear a complaint beyond that provided in its Statute. As well, it is for the Tribunal to determine if it is competent to hear the complaint (see Judgments 1509, consideration 14, and 3247, consideration 19).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509, 3247
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4292

  
  130th Session, 2020
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The FAO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4065.

  Considerations 6-8

  Extract:

  In its application for interpretation, the FAO states that while it notes that the five points of the decision in Judgment 4065 are expressed in clear terms, it became apparent from the exchanges of correspondence between the parties (referred to in the foregoing considerations) that they have differing views regarding what the decision requires them to do. This, it states, is because “there appears to be some ambiguity as to what actions are required as a consequence of Point 1 [of the Decision], having regard to Consideration 8 of the Judgment”, on which it requests the Tribunal’s guidance.
  The FAO is entitled to apply for the interpretation of consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 as it has done in this instance as, according to the Tribunal’s case law, as stated, for example in Judgment 3984, consideration 10, although ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment, it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision. In this instance, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 4065 incorporated consideration 8 of Judgment 4065. The critical question is whether the application is receivable. As the case law further states, in the said consideration 10 of Judgment 3984, such an application is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed.
  The application for interpretation is irreceivable. Consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 is clear and unambiguous. [...] It is not within the Tribunal’s purview to provide an advisory opinion or guidance concerning the steps that are to follow the discussion or what should happen if events unfold in a certain way. The Tribunal reiterates that both the FAO and the complainant must approach the implementation of its order in point 2 and the analysis contained in consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 in a rational, sensible and balanced way, and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see Judgment 3989, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 3989, 4065
  

  Keywords:

  advisory opinion; application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4291

  
  130th Session, 2020
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  In his claims for relief, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order a number of measures which are either unrelated to the present complaint or beyond the Tribunal’s competence, namely, that the Tribunal should order the UPU to: initiate disciplinary action against UPU officials; re-credit the complainant with previously deducted sick leave, salary, home leave and other emoluments; commence a reclassification review of the complainant’s post; revise the complainant’s job description and grade; and allow the complainant “to work permanently from home at a percentage mutually agreed upon by him and his treating physician”. Those claims will not be considered.

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4250

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him the requested paid parental leave upon the birth of his child by surrogacy.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The Tribunal observes that the complainant is basically advocating for a change in the rules and does not make any specific claim in that respect. Accordingly these statements, which are of a general nature serve unclear purposes, and the Tribunal cannot address them.

  Keywords:

  change of rules; competence of tribunal; discrimination;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4241

  
  129th Session, 2020
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant [...] seeks an order that her harasser(s) be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for misconduct. The request is rejected as the imposition of such a measure lies outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3318, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae; relief claimed; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4230

  
  129th Session, 2020
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to introduce a maximum length of employment under short-term appointments in breach of applicable rules on consultation with staff representatives.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  The complainant seeks an order that the FAO follows the consultative process as set out in relevant Staff Rules and procedures before issuing a revised version of the Circular. While the FAO has a duty to consult properly with the staff representative bodies in the event that it decides to issue a new Circular, it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to make the requested order.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; consultation; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4221

  
  129th Session, 2020
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  [I]t is not within the Tribunal’s remit to conduct an analysis of the posts with which the complainant seeks to compare her post for the subject purpose (see, for example, Judgment 4000, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; post classification;
  

< 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 >