Case law (179, 687, 856,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Case law
Total judgments found: 279
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2219
95th Session, 2003
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The [organisation] contends that the application for review is irreceivable on the grounds that it was submitted more than five months after the judgment was delivered. According to the [organisation], this does not constitute a "reasonable" time within the meaning of the case law referred to in Judgment 1952. The Tribunal on occasion has ruled on applications for review filed more than six months after the impugned judgment was delivered, and even though it is aware of the need to avoid going back on legal situations arising from its decisions, it may consider an application to be receivable when it is submitted nearly six months after a judgment has been delivered, as in the present case. If vital evidence were to come to light, for instance, a judgment could be reviewed even after a greater period of time has elapsed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952
Keywords:
application for review; case law; reasonable time; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
Judgment 2214
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(B) and (C)
Extract:
The complainant asked for the payment of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 of the EPO's Service Regulations. The Tribunal gave "a definition of permanent or continuous residence". While this requires actual long-term presence in the country concerned, it does not necessarily exclude another residence. In judgment 1099 the Tribunal held that in order to establish whether the complainant met the condition of 'continuous residence' in the country of his duty station for at least three years prior to being recruited by the Office, it was necessary to determine whether there were "objective and factual links with that country". It added that: "what matters is that the complainant had to live, and did live [in that country]". It was not important to know whether the complainant had paid taxes there or whether, at the same time, he kept a home address at his former place of residence (see Judgment 1099, under 8). The status of the residence is not relevant either (see Judgment 1150). It is clear from the case law when residence must be deemed to have been interrupted, within the meaning of Article 72 of the Service Regulations. It is not sufficient for the person concerned to have stopped living in a particular country; he must in addition have intended to leave the country for some length of time."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1099, 1150
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; case law; condition; definition; duty station; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; non-resident allowance; period; place of origin; provision; request by a party; residence; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2211
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Having made reference to what it declared in Judgment 1884, under 8 and 9, the Tribunal states: "The Tribunal will not, of course, impose costs penalties in every case in which a persistent litigant [...] loses, for some disputes will no doubt be at least arguable. But where, as in the present case, a complainant has actually had success before the Tribunal [...] and nonetheless refuses to accept the limitations which such success imposes, that complainant may expect to have cost consequences. Because this is the first time the Tribunal has had to act against the present complainant, the costs awarded to the organisation will be relatively nominal, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. The Tribunal will order the complainant to pay the [organisation] the sum of 100 euros in costs. The [organisation] may recover the award by withholding it from any amounts due to the complainant now or in the future."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884
Keywords:
case law; complaint; costs; counterclaim; res judicata; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2207
94th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The affair the complainant had with a national of the country of the duty station led to a series of incidents. "In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that it was in the organization's interest to terminate the complainant's assignment in Nairobi in order to maintain an untroubled working atmosphere in the service and to preserve its good relations with the host country. However, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law (see, in particular, Judgments 269 and 1231), the defendant could not terminate the complainant's appointment solely on that basis, without having taken appropriate steps to find him a new assignment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1231
Keywords:
case law; conduct; duty station; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer; working relations;
Judgment 2193
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependant on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. The Tribunal states that "neither the letter nor the spirit of the relevant texts cited by the parties, nor indeed the case law, enable partners bound by a pacs to be considered as having the status of spouses within the meaning of Staff Rule 103.9."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 103.9
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; contract; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; organisation's duties; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 2178
94th Session, 2003
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant filed an application for execution less than two months after the judgment on his first complaint was delivered. "The haste with which he came to the Tribunal is all the more regrettable for the fact that the discussions taking place between the parties could have enabled them, if not to reach an agreement, then at least to clarify certain aspects of the case which remain uncertain [...]. The Federation raises the question of whether under these circumstances the application for execution is receivable. However, the Tribunal's case law shows a constant line of precedent on this issue: any serious difficulty concerning the execution of a judgment can validly be brought before the Tribunal by means of an application for execution. In the present case, it is to be regretted that the difficulties could not be overcome by the parties through discussion in good faith, but the Federation may not object to the receivability of the complainant's application."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; condition; execution of judgment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. Being subject to only limited review, it may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 2157
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
"The Tribunal is competent, ratione personae, to hear the complaint since, under Article ii, paragraph 6, of its Statute. The Tribunal is open to former staff members. However, Article ii, paragraph 5, restricts the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of an organisation's staff regulations. [...] As a general rule, a former staff member who applies for a post in an organisation after separation from it may not rely on the rules that governed his contract of appointment and so does not have access to the Tribunal (see, among others, Judgments 1845 [...] and 1554 [...])" except in the case of "any contractual obligation the [organisation] may have had to help the complainant to find new employment [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1554, 1845
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; competition; complaint; contract; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2156
93rd Session, 2002
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Admittedly, precedent has it that international organisations can undertake restructuring where it is necessary to achieve greater effectiveness, or indeed to make savings, and can therefore regroup certain functions and make staff reductions. But any job abolitions arising out of such a policy must be justified by real needs, and not be immediately followed by the creation of equivalent posts."
Keywords:
abolition of post; case law; cause; creation of post; post; staff reduction; termination of employment;
Judgment 2136
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [state] that, according to the Tribunal's case law (see Judgment 1821, for example), adjustments to international civil servants' salaries must satisfy objective criteria of stability, foreseeability and transparency. The Tribunal considers that this line of precedent - concerning the determination of staff salaries, which is necessarily governed by very strict rules - is not entirely applicable to the determination of allowances granted for a specific purpose, such as that of covering expenses incurred by staff members on travel status. Even if it claims to be acting in the exercise of its discretion, and although the legal framework surrounding its action remains vague or non-existent, the administration must base its decisions on objective considerations and avoid breaching any of the guarantees protecting the independence of international civil servants."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; allowance; analogy; breach; case law; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; independence; no provision; official; official travel; organisation's duties; purpose; safeguard; salary; travel expenses; written rule;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2121
93rd Session, 2002
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 14
Extract:
The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Relations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith. Furthermore, an organisation must treat its staff with due consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. In particular, it must inform them in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or rightful interests (see, for example, Judgment 1756 [...], under 10(a) and the others cited therein; and for more recent cases, Judgments 2017 [...]; 2051 [...]; 2067 [...]; and 2072 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2017, 2051, 2067, 2072
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2098
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated by mutual agreement. He appears to object that the organization terminated his employment while he was on sick leave. "Although the Tribunal held in Judgment 938 [...] that a staff member cannot be separated while on sick leave, it later pointed out that its ruling was to be seen in context and could not be applied in any circumstances whatever (see Judgment 1494 [...], under 6). The rule being intended to protect the staff member, it cannot be applied where the termination is the subject of an agreement, particularly when it has been mooted by the staff member concerned".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 938, 1494
Keywords:
agreed termination; case law; condition; contract; exception; iloat; limits; separation from service; sick leave;
Judgment 2096
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The [contract renewal] board was under the obligation to take into account performance appraisal reports [...]. The [complainant's] performance appraisal report for 1999 had not been completed for submission to the board. Yet, before a decision is taken not to renew a contract, precedent has it that it is a fundamental obligation to examine the staff member's performance appraisal. Failure to comply with that obligation constitutes a procedural flaw as it has the effect of excluding an essential fact from consideration (see, in particular, Judgment 1525 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1525
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; contract; delay; disregard of essential fact; effect; iloat; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The determination of salary scales is discretionary [and] must be exercised within a framework of rules drawn from both the relevant statutory provisions and the general principles of clarity, stability and foreseeability defined in the case law (see, for example, Judgment 1821)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
case law; definition; discretion; general principle; iloat; limits; organisation; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
|
