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 3895
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3694.
Consideration 5
Extract:
With respect to the remaining requested clarifications, b) to e) [...], the Tribunal finds that they are not requests for interpretation of the judgment, but are instead essentially requests for advice. Specifically, the complainant asks about the lawfulness of the new norms and if their applicability to his appeal adheres to the principles of international civil service law. These requests for advice are beyond the Tribunal’s competence.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3876
124th Session, 2017
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It should also be noted that it is clearly not the Tribunal’s role to identify “any [...] objective evidence [...] proving [the complainant’s] paternity”, as he requests, since the Tribunal cannot provide the parties with legal or expert opinions.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3858
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has accepted that the question of what is in the best interest of an organisation is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of the executive head (see Judgment 2377, consideration 5). The Tribunal’s jurisprudence, as discussed in that judgment, is that the Tribunal will normally defer to the view of the executive head and will only intervene if it is shown that the executive head acted without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if a decision was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts or if there was abuse of authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; organisation's interest;
Judgment 3845
124th Session, 2017
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[A]s the Statute of the Tribunal does not provide for the right to formulate reservations concerning the scope of the Tribunal’s competence, organisations recognising the Tribunal’s jurisdiction accept that all disputes arising between them and their officials may be submitted to the Tribunal.
While it is true that in the letter [...] by which it asked to recognise the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the ACP Group specified that its request pertained to the provisions of Title IX of the Staff Regulations governing disciplinary proceedings, it ensues from the foregoing that such a request could not be approved in that form. Consequently, the acceptance by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office of the request must be understood as intending to empower the Tribunal to hear all disputes between the ACP Group and its officials.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 3834
124th Session, 2017
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 6
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3774
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that he has not been offered further contracts with the ILO.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; external candidate; ratione personae;
Judgment 3726
123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
IOM has not disputed that the five subject tasks that were assigned to the complainant occasioned her to perform duties and responsibilities which were above her G.5 grade. An international organization is required to respect the grading structure and grades of its staff members. The following was accordingly stated in Judgment 808, consideration 22:
“In sum the Director-General may assign the staff as the Organisation’s interests require provided he respects their grades and the grading structure. Transfer does not depend on their consent and they must be willing to put their hand to any work that suits their grade, their qualifications and the terms of their appointment.”
The complainant seems to invite the Tribunal to reclassify her post in relation to her performance of the subject tasks, but the Tribunal has no authority to do so (see Judgment 3284, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3720
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3510.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] asks the Tribunal to review the lawfulness of the procedure followed by the authorities of the Netherlands, but this is plainly not within its competence.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3709
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a retired UNESCO official, impugns the decision of the Director-General not to give her access to the submissions of another official who filed a complaint against UNESCO with the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; former official; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
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 the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, a former official of UNESCO, does not allege any breach of her terms of appointment or of Staff Regulations applicable to her.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; former official;
Judgment 3705
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a re-characterisation of her employment relationship with WIPO.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; official; summary procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complainant cannot be considered an official, she does not have access to the Tribunal (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), 3049, under 4, and 3550, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 3049, 3550
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; official;
Judgment 3648
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
WIPO’s argument that the Tribunal itself could have raised the issue of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action is of no avail. Indeed, although it is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, for example, Judgments 2567, under 6, 3139, under 3, and the case law cited therein), the Tribunal may only do so when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted. That is plainly not the case here, especially if one considers only the submissions as they stood before the surrejoinder was filed, which is how the issue must be approached here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2567, 3139
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage, and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A significant part of the complainant’s submissions is devoted to challenging certain modifications to the EPO’s internal appeal procedure which were introduced in 2013. In his claims for relief, he specifically asks the Tribunal to “clarify some points of the procedure of the Internal Appeals Committee”. The complainant clearly misunderstands the role of the Tribunal. A request for interpretation of a normative text of an organization cannot be formulated as an independent claim before the Tribunal, outside the context of alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official. This claim is therefore clearly irreceivable."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; interpretation; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3544
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the practice followed in granting appointments without limit of time to officials in the Director and Principal Officer category.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the Director-General’s decision [...] was confined to dismissing the complainant’s grievance as irreceivable, [...] the Tribunal considers that, since the parties have addressed the substance of the complainant’s claims, it should rule on the merits of the case."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Consideration 30
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the retroactive reclassification of the post […] and to order the IAEA to pay material damages equivalent to the salary differential […] taking into account step increases […]. First, the reclassification of a post is clearly beyond the competence of the Tribunal as the authority to do so rests exclusively with the Director General and as delegated. Second, granting the request for the material damages would amount to the Tribunal substituting its own assessment for that of the competent authority contrary to well settled case law (for example, see Judgments 2284, under 9, and 3284, under 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2284, 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3468
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is irreceivable and is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[I]t is clear that these issues concerned the application of a policy to the complainant while he was seeking consultancy work with the FAO but when he was no longer an official of the Organization. The policy had no practical or legal application to the complainant when he was an official of the FAO. Accordingly the issues sought to be raised by the complainant in his internal appeal and before the Tribunal are not issues concerning the non-observance of the terms of his appointment as an official of the FAO or of the application of the Staff Regulations applicable to him during his period of employment with that Organization. The complainant’s challenge is made as a potential consultant rather than as a former official. Consequently, his complaint is based on his status as a potential consultant. Having regard to Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant;
Judgment 3449
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[T]he complainant also acted in his capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee of the Office. According to the case law, members of a staff committee may bring a complaint to preserve common rights and interests, these being understood to mean enforceable legal rights and interests derived from terms of appointment or under Staff Regulations which have not necessarily been breached in respect of the member of the staff committee who files a complaint with the Tribunal.
In order for a complaint submitted on behalf of a staff committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which an organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected to it by an employment contract or who have the status of officials. This condition is a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3342, under 10, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3342
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3441
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]ll of these and other issues which call into question decisions that are made on the basis of the UNJSPF Regulations are irreceivable in the Tribunal as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under UNIDO Staff Regulation 12.2(b).
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; unjspf;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[T]he complainants requested subsidiarily that the Tribunal should order the EPO “correctly to interpret the capping in Art[icle] 10 [of the New Pension Scheme Regulations]” [...]. The Tribunal may not, however, issue such injunctions to an international organisation. Hence these claims are [...] irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 1456, under 31, 2244, under 12, or 2793, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456, 2244, 2793
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[I]t is observed that the Tribunal has, in certain circumstances, “deemed” that the internal means of resisting a decision have been exhausted. However, as the exhaustion of the internal means of resisting a decision is a statutorily mandated requirement of receivability, it is beyond the Tribunal’s competence to waive it.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3426
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, 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” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[E]ven if there is agreement, the Tribunal must still determine whether it is competent to hear the complaint under Article II of the Statute. As the competence of the Tribunal is statutory, it cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties or on consent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat statute;
< 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 >
|
