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 4219
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The decision of the European Commission to make the recall is not justiciable before the Tribunal as it has not, as noted earlier, submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, even if it was possible.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; defendant organisation; secondment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The defendant organisation contends in its reply that the Tribunal is not competent to deal with this complaint and that it is irreceivable. It also requests the Tribunal to make a procedural ruling limiting the proceedings in the first instance to a consideration of these two contentions. It is unnecessary to make such a procedural ruling. Mostly, when a party challenges the competence of the Tribunal or argues that a complaint is irreceivable, the Tribunal will treat these issues as threshold issues which need to be addressed before, if it becomes appropriate, addressing the merits of the case if the challenge to competence or receivability fails.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4207
129th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the IAEA be ordered to audit, review and amend its procedures for resolving sexual harassment complaints is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence [...].
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order to modify internal rules;
Judgment 4201
128th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Staff Association to reject his application for legal support in connection with a complaint he had filed with the Tribunal.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, at the time when he filed his complaint, the complainant was a former official. Although the Tribunal is open to former officials of international organizations recognising its competence, a complaint filed by a former official must, like any other complaint, invoke non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of the complainant’s appointment and/or of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. In this case, however, the complainant does not allege that any provision of his terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations has been violated.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; ratione materiae; ratione personae;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; ratione materiae; summary procedure;
Judgment 4194
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the refusal to consult them concerning the use of external contractors.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; en banc review; outsourcing; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Judgment 4193
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Inasmuch as it is within the authority of the President to determine the grade of a post, the Tribunal does not have the competence to make an order which the complainant seeks that it upgrade her post [...] retroactively [...].
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 4185
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[M]aking an order that the practice of purchasing the driver uniforms be restored is beyond the competence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 4038, consideration 19) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4038
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4145
128th Session, 2019
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer one of his subordinates to another team.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s assertion that as the decision “directly adversely affected” him and caused him injury, he has the requisite standing as stated in the case law to bring the present complaint is also unfounded. Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute has been interpreted to require that for a complaint to be receivable the staff member must have a cause of action and the impugned decision must be one that, by its nature, is subject to challenge. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3426, consideration 16, in addition to the requirement that the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person as provided in paragraph 6 of the Article, paragraph 5 requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In Judgment 4048, consideration 5, the Tribunal elaborated that “to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment” and that “[t]he complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute)”. As the complaint does not relate to a decision involving the complainant’s terms of appointment or the provisions of the EMBL’s Staff Rules and Regulations, it does not disclose a cause of action and is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 4048
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; receivability ratione materiae;
Judgment 4141
128th Session, 2019
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the CTA to reject his proposal to negotiate an agreed termination of his employment contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 2, 3, 4
Extract:
The CTA, which withdrew its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by a decision of its Executive Board of 23 March 2018 that was notified to the Director-General of the ILO by a letter of the same date, submits that the Tribunal is therefore not competent to rule on the present complaint. According to the CTA, which had at the same time provided that disputes between itself and its staff members would henceforth be resolved by a new tribunal established at the CTA, its withdrawal from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction took immediate effect and therefore precludes the Tribunal from considering the aforementioned complaint, registered on 13 August 2018, since it was filed subsequent to the withdrawal.
However, as under Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal the recognition by an international organization of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the ILO, the principle of parallelism of form requires that the withdrawal of recognition of jurisdiction should also be subject, before taking effect, to a discussion by the same body. As the Tribunal has previously found, it can only be bound, when an organization decides to withdraw from its jurisdiction, when it has been notified of the ILO Governing Body’s deliberations taking note of such a decision (see Judgment 1043, consideration 3).
In the present case, it was only on 30 October 2018 that the ILO Governing Body considered the withdrawal by the CTA of its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 29
Extract:
The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The status of UNAIDS staff is explained in the reply prepared by WHO and expressed to be made on behalf of both WHO and UNAIDS in the proceeding involving UNAIDS. UNAIDS derives its legal status from WHO as the administering organization in accordance with WHO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. UNAIDS staff members are thus subject to the conditions of service as determined by WHO.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Consideration 28
Extract:
The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 29
Extract:
The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;
Judgment 4126
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC who had separated from service in October 2015, challenges the rejection of his harassment complaint filed in March 2018 against the President of the Staff Union Council.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is irreceivable. Although Section 4 of Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005 states that it applies to former staff members, it is firmly established in the case law that the rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute (see, for example, Judgment 3889, under 3). 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”. In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, a former official of the ICC, does not allege any breach of his terms of appointment or of ICC Staff Rules applicable to him while he was still an ICC official. His complaint, which does not fall within the competence of the Tribunal, is therefore clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3889
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4104
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4102
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the ILO’s failure to take a final decision on her job grading appeal and the failure to grant her a contract without limit of time.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal cannot order the Organization to reclassify the complainant’s post since this is a discretionary decision to be made by the Organization.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; post classification;
Judgment 4100
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is well settled that the Tribunal “may not replace the Organisation’s assessment of the applicants with its own and order any particular appointment” (Judgment 1595, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant requests that the Tribunal order the Administration to make a public apology. The Tribunal is not competent to make such an order (see, for example, Judgments 2742, consideration 44, and 3597, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3597
Keywords:
apology; competence of tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant’s requests for protective measures are beyond the Tribunal’s competence.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4089
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285
Keywords:
age limit; competence of tribunal; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review; retirement;
Judgment 4088
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The IAEA contends that the claims which the complainant raises concerning the under-classification of his P-2 post and his request for an order that a compensation scheme be created and that he be awarded compensation for his involvement in an IT Extended Schedule are also irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. However, the creation of such a scheme and making an order that the complainant is to be compensated therefrom is beyond the competence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 4038, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4038
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
< 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 >
|
