Claim (18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Claim
Total judgments found: 141
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Reference is made to decisions of this Tribunal which make it clear that an organisation is under a duty to investigate claims of harassment promptly and bona fide (see Judgments 2552, 2654 and 2910).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2654, 2910
Keywords:
claim; harassment; investigation; time limit;
Judgment 3180
114th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from a salary adjustment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the amount of money claimed may be derisory does not prevent the claim from being receivable. [I]f the [Organisation] was of the opinion that the amount at stake in this dispute was derisory, it ought to have tried to put an end to it by reaching an amicable settlement."
Keywords:
amount; claim; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he complainant is [...] entitled to claim interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from [...] a [salary] adjustment."
Keywords:
adjustment; amount; claim; delay; interest on damages; payment; salary;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3164
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation must interpret a staff member’s claims in good faith and read them as it might reasonably have been expected to do (see, in particular, Judgment 1768, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768
Keywords:
claim; good faith; interpretation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3103
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are, to a large extent, interdependent, and the Tribunal finds it appropriate that they be joined, notwithstanding the complainant's position (see Judgments 2861, under 6, and 2944, under 19)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 2944
Keywords:
claim; complaint; joinder; submissions;
Judgment 3092
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It must [...] be observed that, by any standards, a delay of 42 months in completing the processing of a compensation claim [...] is unreasonable."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 36
Extract:
"It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment. That duty extends to both the staff member alleging harassment and the person against whom a complaint is made (see Judgment 2642, under 8). [...] Further, the duty is a duty to investigate claims of harassment "promptly and thoroughly" (see Judgment 2642, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
claim; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3060
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a "decision upon [the] claim" within the meaning of [Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal], which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgment 2948, under 7, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2948
Keywords:
claim; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body;
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 3023
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the plea that the non-observance of the time-limits for the filing of the internal appeal was due to reasons beyond the complainant's control.
"[T]he complainant claims that she has suffered injury due to the delay in the internal appeals proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the internal appeal took approximately 17 months. Given that the only issue considered in the appeal process was receivability, the Tribunal agrees that there has been undue delay for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complainant; delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 3016
111th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he complainant's claim for egregious delay is founded. More than four years passed from the start of the post classification exercise to when the final decision was made, and that is excessive."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; decision; delay; late decision; post classification; reasonable time;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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;
Judgment 2992
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The CDE requests that certain documents be removed from the file on the grounds that they are confidential and that the complainant obtained them unlawfully.
"The Tribunal will not accede to the request for the removal of items of evidence, since the Centre has not proved that this request is justified by the protection of interests more worthy of protection that the complainant's interest in defending herself (see Judgment 2700, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700
Keywords:
claim; confidential evidence; discontinuance; flaw; lack of evidence; organisation; organisation's interest; refusal; staff member's interest;
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 2980
110th Session, 2011
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Competition considered procedurally flawed because candidates were added to the shortlist after the evaluation process had begun.
"[T]he Tribunal rules on the basis of the specific claims against an administrative decision in a particular complaint, which means that if an alleged flaw is found not to have existed, that is not to say that the administrative decision was lawful and that no flaw exists which could be contested in a new complaint within the established time limits."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; flaw; res judicata; right of appeal;
Judgment 2973
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"By failing to deal with the informal complaints in a manner consistent with its own policy, by failing to conduct an investigation in a timely manner when a formal complaint was filed and then by terminating the investigation, WHO breached its duty of care toward the complainant and caused her serious injury."
Keywords:
breach; claim; duty of care; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2962
110th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Organization asks the Tribunal to 'delete' certain passages from the complaint, as in its view they have no bearing on this dispute. The Tribunal will not grant this request, because complainants are free to present any argument that they consider relevant to their case, provided that they do not use terms or a tone overstepping the bounds of what is permissible in judicial proceedings."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; condition; discontinuance; limits; organisation; refusal;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
While the complainant has referred to these matters in her submissions, with the exception of the allegations concerning the interruption of her sick leave and the exit medical examination, she has not done so for the purpose of advancing a claim, but instead to provide a context for her other allegations.
Keywords:
claim; complaint; submissions;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant seeks to have his retirement pension recalculated on a different basis.
"[T]he Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction in any event to award him such redress."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; pension; reckoning; refusal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
