Exception (113,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Exception
Total judgments found: 213
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
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 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Thus, except in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on that point Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3068, under 20)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3068
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 3120
113th Session, 2012
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
Judgment 3115
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 3102
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
administrative delay; career; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; misconduct; official; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; right;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Where [...] a person relies on an exception to escape liability, it is for that person to establish that his actions fell within the exception."
Keywords:
burden of proof; exception; liability;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, when an organisation is ordered to grant a financial benefit to a staff member who fulfilled the legal requirements for claiming it, but who failed to do so as soon as his/her entitlement arose, the benefit in question is due only as from the date of the initial claim by the person concerned, and not the date on which he/she became entitled to the benefit ([...] see Judgment 2550, under 6, or Judgment 2860, under 22). There would be no justification for ordering an organisation unexpectedly to pay potentially large, backdated, aggregated sums for benefits which had not been claimed by the staff member concerned when he or she should have done so. [...] [Moreover] it is true that the position would be different if the Organization itself were responsible for the fact that the [staff member] did not submit a claim [at that time]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2550, 2860
Keywords:
amount; condition; date; delay; exception; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; medical expenses; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3074
112th Session, 2012
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
[M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It does not lie within the Tribunal's competence, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to examine whether the practice followed by the Genevan tax authorities [...] was compatible with the provisions on the exemption enjoyed in principle by the complainant as a[n] official employed by an international organisation which has concluded a headquarters agreement with Switzerland [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; domestic law; exception; headquarters agreement; iloat statute; limits; official; organisation; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 3013
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The obligation to pay compound interest is always an exception. According to the Tribunal's case law, such an obligation must arise from the operative part of its judgments. In this case, to quote the language of consideration 4 of Judgment 802, "if the Tribunal had meant compound interest, [...] it would have used words to that effect"."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 802
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; consequence; exception; interest on damages; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; grounds; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; exception; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; official; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard;
Judgment 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2459, under 9, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; provision; request by a party;
Judgment 2963
110th Session, 2011
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The rule against retrospectivity permits of two exceptions, namely where the decision involves no detriment to the staff member concerned and where the decision replaces an earlier provisional decision (see Judgment 1130, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1130
Keywords:
decision; exception; injury; non-retroactivity; provisional decision; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
"The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;
Judgment 2889
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 and 7
Extract:
"In accordance with the Tribunal's case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see, for instance, Judgment 1887, under 8). An exception must, however, be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; date; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2845
107th Session, 2009
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations, the Director General may, in the interest of the Union, extend the age limit in exceptional cases. The Tribunal considers that "the Director General's refusal to extend the complainant's service beyond the statutory age limit constitutes an act of retaliation [...]. The Director General used his discretionary authority for purposes other than those for which it was intended, thereby committing an abuse of authority. It follows that the impugned decision must be set aside."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations
Keywords:
abuse of power; age limit; amendment to the rules; career; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2796
106th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant asks that the defendant provide him with a positive work reference and that information concerning the issues raised in his complaint be given to some delegates.
"None of these matters was the subject of his internal appeals. Accordingly, those claims are irreceivable (see Judgments 899, 1263, 1443 and 2213). Further and save in exceptional cases where an international organisation has a continuing duty to undo damage caused by its own communications to a third party, as in Judgment 2720, the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of the kind sought (see Judgments 126, 1591 and 2058)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 126, 899, 1263, 1443, 1591, 2058, 2213, 2720
Keywords:
claim; communication to third party; compensation; competence of tribunal; exception; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2793
106th Session, 2009
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law certainly allows any complainant incidentally to challenge the lawfulness of a general decision forming the legal basis of the individual decision which he or she is seeking to have quashed (see Judgments 1000, 1451, 2129 and 2410, or indeed [...] Judgments 2615 and 2655), and the lawfulness of this general decision may be challenged on the grounds that it was taken pursuant to another decision which was itself unlawful (see for a similar case Judgment 1265, under 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1265, 1451, 2129, 2410, 2615, 2655
Keywords:
exception; general decision;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
