Execution of judgment (134, 745,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Execution of judgment
Total judgments found: 77
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 3825
124th Session, 2017
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3565.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Pursuant to Article VI of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal is competent to review its decisions. Such review, however, may only take place in exceptional circumstances. One of the exceptional circumstances articulated in the case law is where there has been a failure to take into account particular facts that would have led to a different result. In relation to the execution of a judgment, this has been further refined to limit review to those cases where the Tribunal was unaware of the fact or facts that make execution of the decision impossible. If the execution of an order is impossible for this reason, it is incumbent on the party whose duty it is to execute the order to bring an application for review to resolve the matter.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
Keywords:
execution of judgment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
As the Tribunal specifically ordered that the written confirmation regarding the removal and destruction of materials was to be signed by the Executive Secretary personally, the signing of the confirmation could not lawfully be delegated to another person. The Commission’s submission that the Executive Secretary’s signature could be dispensed with overlooks the clear language of the order that it was obliged to execute.
Keywords:
delegated authority; execution of judgment;
Judgment 3824
124th Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3421.
Consideration 4
Extract:
At the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal and according to its case law, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see Judgment 1887, under 8). However, an exception must 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 (see Judgments 2889, under 6 and 7, 3261, under 16, and 3332, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887, 2889, 3261, 3332
Keywords:
execution of judgment;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
[The Organisation] executed Judgment 3421 as far as possible having regard to the change in circumstances since the end of the disputed competition. It did not act unlawfully by stating that it was impossible for it to re-open the competition, because this was prevented by a restructuring, the need for which cannot be contested. Nor did it act unlawfully by failing to provide additional information to the complainant, beyond that which it had provided at his request in the letter dated 1 November 2013.
Nevertheless, the defendant’s failure to inform the Tribunal of a change in circumstances that would have rendered moot the complaint leading to Judgment 3421 led to the adoption of that same judgment, the execution of which is partly impossible. The complainant is thus entitled to moral damages, though it must also be taken into account that he too could have informed the Tribunal of the change in circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3421
Keywords:
duty to inform; execution of judgment; moral injury;
Judgment 3823
124th Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3225.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VI, paragraph 1, second and third sentences, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal, but it may consider applications for interpretation, execution or review of those judgments. As the case law has consistently stated (since Judgment 82, under 6), the Tribunal’s judgments are therefore immediately operative, a principle also stemming from their res judicata authority. International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action is required by a judgment, which must be executed as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, 3003, under 12, 3152, under 11, and 3394, under 9). Furthermore, the parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments. Execution must occur within a reasonable period of time, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, especially the nature and the extent of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, for example, Judgments 2684, under 6, 3066, under 6, and 3656, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 1887, 2684, 3003, 3066, 3152, 3394, 3656
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury; res judicata;
Judgment 3822
124th Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3507.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complainant believed that she should file an application for interpretation to this end, the Tribunal observes that the application can also be regarded, to a large extent, as an application for execution. Indeed, it is clear that in the complainant’s mind, the main purpose of the application, apart from obtaining an interpretation of the judgment, is to secure full execution of the judgment, as witness her claims for payment of the balance of the award against the Global Fund that she considers due and for interest thereon.
Keywords:
execution of judgment; interpretation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, under 6, and 3635, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635
Keywords:
execution of judgment; res judicata;
Judgment 3821
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3491.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The [organisation] submits that as Judgment 3491 has been fully executed and the present application exceeds the scope of an application for interpretation and execution, it is irreceivable. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3723, under 2, “[a]n application for execution of a judgment is, by definition, premised on the contention that the judgment in question has not been properly executed. Determining whether or not that contention is correct plainly involves an examination of the merits of the application. Hence the receivability of an application for execution cannot be challenged by the defendant organisation on that basis.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3491, 3723
Keywords:
execution of judgment;
Judgment 3820
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3490.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The [Organisation] submits that as Judgment 3490 has been fully executed and the present application exceeds the scope of an application for interpretation and execution, it is irreceivable. This argument is rejected. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3723, under 2, “[a]n application for execution of a judgment is, by definition, premised on the contention that the judgment in question has not been properly executed. Determining whether or not that contention is correct plainly involves an examination of the merits of the application. Hence the receivability of an application for execution cannot be challenged by the defendant organisation on that basis.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3490, 3723
Keywords:
execution of judgment;
Judgment 3792
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3045.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s of the date on which the present judgment is adopted, in other words more than five years after the delivery in public of Judgment 3045, the latter is still being executed. The Organisation has therefore seriously breached its duty to execute the judgment within a reasonable period of time. It must ensure that the procedure is now completed as soon as possible.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3045
Keywords:
execution of judgment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he delay in executing Judgment 3045 has caused the complainant moral injury, which may be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 20,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3045
Keywords:
execution of judgment; moral injury;
Judgment 3724
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for execution of Judgments 2551 and 3637.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Given that the execution of points 2 and 3 of the decision in Judgment 3637 entailed the payment of clearly determined sums, and as the complainant did not mention any payment in her brief, the President of the Tribunal decided, as an exceptional measure, to ask the ITU what steps it had taken to execute Judgment 3637. The ITU has furnished written evidence that on 14 July 2016, i.e. eight days after the public delivery of the aforementioned judgment, it paid the complainant the full amount of the moral damages and costs as ordered by the Tribunal. The ITU has also supplied evidence that the complainant was informed of this. It is verging on bad faith that she failed to mention those payments in her applications.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3637
Keywords:
execution of judgment;
Judgment 3656
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3230.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s judgments carry the authority of res judicata and must be executed as ruled. The parties must work together in good faith to this end. Judgments must be executed within a reasonable period of time. In order to ascertain whether this is the case, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account, especially the nature and the scope of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, in particular, Judgments 2684, under 4 and 6, and 3066, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3066
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
While there is no evidence in the file to show that Eurocontrol informed the complainant of all the steps it was taking to execute the judgment, this does not signify that it thus acted in breach of the principle of good faith. On the contrary, it must be found that there was nothing to prevent the complainant from inquiring as to what progress had been made with these deliberations before complaining to the Tribunal of an alleged failure to act on the part of the Organisation.
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment;
Judgment 3566
121st Session, 2016
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3239.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Contrary to what the complainant states incorrectly in her submissions,[...] the Tribunal did not award her an amount equivalent to “five years of her last salary”, but rather the salary “which she would have received if the execution of her contract had continued […] for five years [...].” The CDE therefore had to reconstruct the salary that the complainant would have received had she actually continued her employment during that period, subject to the sole condition that, as the consideration stipulates, this reconstruction should be performed “at the same level of emoluments”, i.e. disregarding any salary increases – resulting, for example, from a promotion – which the complainant might have received during that period.
However, the allowances and other financial benefits linked to the complainant’s family situation, which formed one element of her salary, were naturally subject under the applicable internal rules to conditions relating to, inter alia, the age and educational arrangements of her dependent children which, by definition, might have been fulfilled for only part of the five years in question."
Keywords:
execution of judgment; material injury;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]he complainant, who has a duty to cooperate in good faith in the execution of the judgment in question, could not, as she did, refuse to provide the CDE with the information and supporting documents that she was asked to produce (see Judgment 2684, under 6).
If she wished to challenge the validity of this request, she had only to lodge an application for interpretation of [the] Judgment [...] with the Tribunal, which she did not do either."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684
Keywords:
application for interpretation; execution of judgment; good faith;
Considerations 17-22
Extract:
"[C]ontrary to what the CDE appears to believe, it cannot legitimately cite the need to submit its every expense to its Executive Board for approval to exonerate it from its duty to execute the judgment in question promptly.
International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require and, in particular, should the Tribunal order payment of a sum of money, to effect this payment without delay (see, inter alia, Judgment 82, under 5, and aforementioned Judgment 3152, under 11). It would be a serious breach of the CDE’s obligations if the execution of such an order were rendered contingent on the Executive Board’s approval, with the inevitable corollary that, should the Board refuse, the CDE would consider itself released from the obligation under which it is placed, or if the execution of the order were simply delayed pending a meeting of the Board, even if the Board’s approval were merely a formality.
However, the Tribunal notes that the CDE’s lack of celerity has not had any practical implications for the complainant. In fact, the conduct of the complainant, who, as mentioned above, refused to submit certain information and documents that were necessary for payment of the sum owed to her, in any case prevented the judgment from being executed more rapidly.
Furthermore, it is clear from the file that the CDE has already endeavoured to pay the greater part of the award against it, despite its major financial difficulties.
In these conditions, and considering the parties’ shared responsibility, explained above, for the errors in the interpretation of Judgment 3239 from which this dispute arises, the Tribunal finds there is no reason to award the amounts claimed by the complainant by way of interest for delay, compensation for moral injury and costs.
In the circumstances of the case, neither is it appropriate to order that the obligation to execute the judgment in question be accompanied by a penalty for default.
The complainant will be required to provide to the CDE without delay, as the CDE rightly requests, the information and supporting documents necessary to determine her entitlement to dependent child allowances, education allowances and coverage of home leave expenses."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 3152
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; execution of judgment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that its judgments, which, according to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which also have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled. They may form the subject of an application for interpretation by the Tribunal only if a party considers that the decision is deficient or insufficiently clear (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, and 3394, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887, 3003, 3152, 3394
Keywords:
application for interpretation; execution of judgment;
Judgment 3394
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that, by taking it upon itself to interpret Judgment 3119, WIPO breached its duty to execute that judgment fully and correctly.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3119
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; execution of judgment; organisation's duties; res judicata;
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;
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Tribunal, which has the power to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that its judgments are executed, may, if it considers it appropriate, order the payment of a penalty for default (see, for example, Judgments 1620, under 10, or 2806, under 11). In the present case, the patent lack of goodwill demonstrated by [the organisation] to date with regard to honouring its obligation to pay the awards made against it justifies the imposition of a penalty, as requested by the complainant, of 25,000 euros for each month's delay in the settlement of the awards made in this judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 2806
Keywords:
application for execution; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3066
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, there is no standard time limit for executing judgments. The time needed for their execution depends on the nature and the scope of the action which the organisation is required to take and it must be allowed a reasonable amount of time depending on the circumstances and, among other things, the interests at stake. Where a judgment provides that a case is sent back to an organisation for a new decision, the time needed depends on the circumstances of the particular case. (See, in particular, Judgment 1812, under 4.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1812, 2837
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion of icj; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;
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;
Consideration 32
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may at any time decide, when it renders a judgment, to defer the execution thereof if it considers such a measure justified (see Judgment 82 [...], under 5). It is therefore for the organisation concerned, if it seeks to have the execution of a judgment deferred in the event that it proves unfavourable to itself, to submit a subsidiary claim for that purpose. If the Tribunal did not order such a deferral in its decision, it must be deemed to have implicitly required the decision to be executed immediately, in conformity with the general rule, and it is therefore scarcely conceivable that an organisation could be allowed to request a stay of execution of the judgment at a later stage."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
claim; counterclaim; date; execution of judgment; implied decision; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
Considerations 40 and 46
Extract:
Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, in the version applicable to the international organisations which have accepted the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, provides that: "In any case in which the Executive Board of an international organization which has made the declaration specified in Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal challenges a decision of the Tribunal confirming its jurisdiction, or considers that a decision of the Tribunal is vitiated by a fundamental fault in the procedure followed, the question of the validity of the decision given by the Tribunal shall be submitted by the Executive Board concerned, for an advisory opinion, to the International Court of Justice."
"[I]t must be emphasised that the question of whether international organisations should be allowed to request a stay of execution of a judgment that they intend to challenge under Article XII of the Statute arises in the context of a procedure which is already fundamentally imbalanced to the detriment of staff members. [T]he option of submitting a request to the Court for an opinion on the basis of that article is confined to the organisations. [...]
Clearly, it is not for the Tribunal to express a critical opinion on a provision of its own Statute. However, it does have to take care, given that this particular provision creates an objective inequality between the parties, to ensure that its own case law does not in any way amplify the consequences of this inequality, which would undeniably occur if requests for a stay of execution submitted by organisations availing themselves of the Article XII procedure were to be considered admissible. To adopt that course would cause serious harm to the legitimate interests of the officials concerned, thereby upsetting the balance between the rights of the organisations and those of their staff members which it is the Tribunal's role to preserve."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute;
Judgment 2988
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Application for execution of Judgment 2786.
"[A]n organisation has a duty to calculate staff salaries and benefits in accordance with its regulations and rules. This applies equally to the calculation of the amount due for salary and benefits pursuant to a judgment of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; execution of judgment; payment; salary;
Judgment 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"The complainant has requested that the order to Eurocontrol to recalculate the pensionable years credited to him be accompanied by a penalty for default. In the absence of any grounds for doubting that the Agency will execute this judgment in good faith and with diligence, as is its duty since it has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction, there is no reason to order such a penalty."
Keywords:
claim; consequence; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; refusal; 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 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the present case, the Secretary-General took a new decision to refer the question of the recognition of domestic partnership to the ITU Council and thereby executed Judgment 2643. There is no basis on which the Tribunal can require anything further, save on a receivable complaint with respect to that new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2643
Keywords:
decision; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; limits; tribunal;
Judgment 2806
106th Session, 2009
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 2575, the Tribunal annulled a decision to transfer the complainant from Vienna to Berlin. No action was taken to return him to Vienna. Instead, on 13 February 2007, the IOM informed him that he was to be transferred to Berlin with immediate effect. In Judgment 2691, the Tribunal declared that the decision of 13 February 2007 was "null and void ab initio".
"Like all judicial bodies, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction and power to take action to ensure that its judgments are implemented. That power may be exercised in any proceedings where a question is raised with respect to the implementation of a judgment. Accordingly, an order will be made for a penalty to be paid in the event that [the complainant] is not posted to Vienna within 30 days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2575, 2691
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension.
"It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; complainant; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 6
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension. However, interest on arrears was paid only to the members of staff who had filed a complaint with the Tribunal; the complainant was not among them. He is consequently challenging the decision not to pay him interest on arrears.
"(a) In the absence of any particular rule requiring the Organisation to pay interest on arrears to a staff member where a benefit due to that person is paid belatedly, such interest is not in principle due until the creditor - i.e. the staff member to whom the benefit is owed - has served notice on the Organisation to pay. This apparently harsh solution is justified because no particular formalities are required for the service of such notice, it being sufficient for the creditor to request payment of the amount due. [...]
(b) However, this rule does not apply where the debt is one which falls due on a fixed date. In such a case the due date is equivalent to the service of notice (dies interpellat pro homine). The debtor owes interest on arrears as from that date, without any need for the creditor to establish that he or she has requested payment of the due sum. The same applies where the debt falls due periodically at a fixed date, as in the case of a salary.
The salary adjustment at issue forms an integral part of the salary. Moreover, the salary, plus increments, is due on precise dates at the end of every month. In the instant case the payment of the staff member's salary, including the adjustment thereto, did not depend on a request from that person. The claim for interest on arrears is therefore well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; amount; complainant; date; debt; delay; exception; execution of judgment; formal requirements; general principle; increase; interest on damages; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; request by a party; retirement; salary;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
