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 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal has examined its competence ratione personae of its own motion since, when the complaint was filed [...], the complainant was formally described in his employment contract as a “consultant”, a term often used for external collaborators. In the complaint form, the complainant calls himself a staff member. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable since 1 January 2012 use the terms “staff members” and “staff” indiscriminately and that WIPO describes the complainant as a temporary employee on a short-term contract. The Tribunal finds that WIPO has consistently treated the complainant as a staff member. It is clear from the evidence that his contract provided for the payment of a salary, that he was subject to the disciplinary procedure – which was actually applied to him – and that he had access to internal appeal bodies. Moreover, WIPO admits that it has outsourced duties previously exercised by the complainant, which clearly shows that they were previously regarded as being performed internally. The Tribunal is therefore competent ratione personae to hear this case. Indeed, it had already implicitly accepted that it was competent to hear the complainant’s previous complaints."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; official; ratione personae; short-term; staff member; status of complainant;
Judgment 3408
119th Session, 2015
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge the decision to apply to them a salary adjustment index they considered illegal.
Considerations 8 and 9
Extract:
The next contention of the complainants is that there is a clear principle that any methodology of adjustment of, amongst other things, salaries must ensure that the results are “stable, foreseeable and clearly understood”, referring to Judgment 1265, consideration 27, and Judgment 1821, consideration 7. They contend that this principle has been violated, at least in the sense that a methodology yielding a negative salary adjustment could not be “clearly understood” and, presumably, was not clearly understood. The complainants refer to the fact that the Finance Committee meeting in November 2011 was in a restricted session and that the Staff Association was not given access to the minutes of that meeting and that of the Council of December 2011. In the brief the concluding submission is that “the Staff Association, through its representatives, and consequently the complainants, were not informed of all the data behind the Council’s decision and consequently, could not understand the results arrived at”. However the die was cast and the method of computation established by the decision of the Tripartite Group at its meeting of 8 March 2011 to recommend, as the minutes record, “[the application of] an exact adjustment for the year 2011 [of minus 1.5 per cent] to the 2012 salary adjustment calculation”. It is true that the minutes also record concerns about the quality of the data input, the availability of the data and its (the methodology’s) retroactive changes. However, insofar as the adjustment of minus 1.5 per cent is concerned, there was, after March 2011, ample opportunity for the representatives of the staff to consult with the Administration about the calculation of the minus 1.5 per cent. Moreover, the jurisprudence the complainants rely on concerns methodology, not the minutiae of particular data used when applying the methodology. The real grievance is with the result, namely a reduction in salaries and other emoluments. That is not to say that data is always immune from challenge. Indeed, the complainants seek to challenge data on the third basis identified earlier.
The challenge to the data is based on the principle, as described in the brief, that “international organisations are bound under law to check that the decision of an external authority is legal, before incorporating it within their own legal order”. The complainants refer to Judgments 382, consideration 6, 825, consideration 18, 1000, consideration 12, 1265, considerations 21 and 24, 1713, consideration 3, 2303, consideration 7, and 2420, consideration 11.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1000, 1265, 1265, 1713, 1821, 2303, 2420
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; salary;
Judgment 3360
118th Session, 2014
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaints seeking a review of the decision to apply to the complainants’ salaries the post adjustment calculated on the basis of the ICSC 2010 cost-of-living survey for Vienna.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complaints are receivable and the Tribunal is competent to rule on their merits. However as they raise issues of a very technical nature, similar considerations apply here as in Judgment 3273, under 6, where the Tribunal noted that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation. Such a decision cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, shows some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlooks some material fact, draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or is an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 2581).”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3359
118th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, former judges of the ICC, impugn the implied decision of the Assembly of States Parties not to determine to which Pension Scheme they were subjected.
Consideration 19
Extract:
"It is settled that pension entitlement is a term of appointment and clearly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; pension entitlements;
Judgment 3318
117th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he claim for disciplinary measures against one of the supervisors implicated in the complaint cannot be granted. Indeed, such a request is, in any event, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. (See Judgments 2811, under 15, or 2636, under 13.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 2811
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 3312
117th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In Judgment 2495, under 9(b), the Tribunal held that in taking a decision at the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, an Executive Head, such as the Registrar, is not bound by the recommendations of a disciplinary board. The Registrar may depart from them if another solution is considered to be more appropriate to ensure the satisfactory running of the Organization. The Tribunal will not substitute its assessment for that of the Registrar, unless it notes a clear disproportion between the gravity of the offence committed and the severity of the penalty imposed by the Registrar. However, a Registrar who departs from a recommendation of a board, as in this case, must state the reasons for disregarding it. One purpose which is served by this requirement to give reasons is to enable the Tribunal to evaluate whether the decision is proportionate in the event that the decision is challenged in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2391, under 8). In this case, the Registrar motivated her decision for departing from the recommendation of the DAB, but gave insufficiently cogent reasons for issuing the reprimand and warnings to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2391, 2495
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; executive head;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; decision-maker; judicial review; reassignment; report;
Judgment 3282
116th Session, 2014
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The guarantee of access to justice is a guarantee of access to a judge, which the complainant has in his ability to bring a complaint before the Tribunal. [...] In this case, Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules provides that there is no internal remedy for decisions regarding non-renewal of contract and as such, the complainant has direct access to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; internal appeal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3260
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After divorce proceedings with serious financial consequences, the complainant challenges the refusal to refer to the General Council of the WTO the issue of compatibility between the judgment of the Swiss Federal Court against him and certain provisions of the Headquarters Agreement and the Pension Plan Regulations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; headquarters agreement;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal is not competent to examine whether the Swiss Civil Code or the Swiss Federal Court decision violates the Headquarters Agreement and cannot entertain challenges to the decision itself. [...] However, as found in Judgment 3020, the Tribunal can consider an organisation’s application of its own provisions [...]. The Tribunal can also, as stated in Judgment 3105, under 5, consider the [organisation]’s application of the Headquarters Agreement."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; flaw; headquarters agreement; vested competence;
Judgment 3247
116th Session, 2014
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"In a case such as the present, jurisdiction is limited and defined by organisations submitting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the complainant being an official (or former official) of an organisation that has so submitted (see Judgments 2503, consideration 4, and 3049, consideration 4). The complainant was not an official of the Global Fund at any relevant time. She was an official of UNOPS, which has not submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the complainant’s complaint save for determining whether it has jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore not receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2503, 3049
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; official; organisation; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment; unops;
Judgment 3213
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her a survivor's pension for her dead husband.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] does not have the power to award pensions outside of the Pension Scheme Regulations, nor is it appropriate for the Organisation to award a recurring “gift” under Article 87 of the Service Regulations, mirroring a pension."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 87 of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; pension; pension entitlements;
Judgment 3172
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority."
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; breach; competence of tribunal; decision; discretion; evidence; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3147
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal finds itself competent as the question raised in the complaint does not relate to the interpretation and execution of supernumerary contracts, but instead relates to the claim raised by a former staff member, that those supernumerary contracts were “fictitious” and that staff holding such contracts must be considered as regular staff members who are eligible to participate in the UNJSPF.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; ratione personae;
Judgment 3144
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
WIPO submits that the Tribunal has no competence to hear the complaint because, as a temporary employee, the complainant is not an official within the meaning of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. This objection is unfounded.
In two recent cases concerning WIPO the Tribunal recalled that it may rule on any employment relationship arising between an international organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. In addition, the Tribunal has noted that paragraph (b) of the introduction to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, on which the Organization relied then and is again relying in this case, in fact refers to persons engaged for short-term service as “staff members” (see Judgments 3090, under 4, and 3091, under 10). Under Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal, this case law applies to any complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3090, 3091
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione personae;
Judgment 3141
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 42
Extract:
It is obviously not incumbent upon the Tribunal to express an opinion as to whether the actions of the authorities of the host State of an international organisation are lawful, particularly with respect to the stipulations of the headquarters agreement between them, as such actions may ordinarily be challenged only in the courts of that State.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; host state;
Judgment 3115
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 3112
113th Session, 2012
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
"As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 3107
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The ITU must immediately lift the ban on the complainant’s presence at its installations. To this end, the Tribunal will make a formal declaration that the ban imposed in consequence of the decision of 16 March 2007 and maintained on 1 April 2009 and, again, on 19 May 2010, is of no force or effect and order the ITU to inform its Security and Safety Service of the terms of that declaration within seven days of the delivery of this judgment. Additionally and to ensure that there is no doubt concerning the maintenance of a ban on the complainant as a consequence of the events of 15 March 2007, the ITU will be ordered to provide a copy of this judgment to the heads of all its departments and divisions within seven days of its delivery. The Tribunal sees no need to order more extensive circulation of the judgment or to make further orders as sought by the complainant.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 3105
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the revised Seat Agreement is an international agreement, [...] the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine in any way its validity. [However] the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the application of a provision of the revised Seat Agreement".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; flaw; headquarters agreement; international instrument; provision; vested competence;
< 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 >
|
