Staff Regulations and Rules (232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff Regulations and Rules
Total judgments found: 494
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >
Judgment 2527
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations allowed the transfer of pension rights acquired by employees under a pension scheme prior to joining the Office only 'provided that that scheme allow[ed] such transfers to be made'. In the present case, it appears from the submissions that the INPS has not yet accepted the transfer to the EPO of pension rights acquired by employees who, like the complainant, were affiliated to the Italian state pension scheme. However regrettable it may be that employees of the Office in the position of the complainant are left at a disadvantage, the Office cannot be blamed for not amending the provisions of Article 12 at the risk of having to bear the costs of the transfer: the consent of the Italian authorities is clearly necessary before any such transfer can take place.
Nevertheless, the Organisation must not have shown negligence or ill will in submitting the problem raised by the complainant to the Italian authorities. It emerges from the submissions, however, that the Italian authorities were approached unsuccessfully in 1992 and 1998 and [again in] 2004 [...]. The Organisation cannot therefore be accused of having 'blocked' the situation and the complainant is not justified in deeming its conduct to be unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; equal treatment; member state; negligence; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
age limit; bias; case law; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. "[I]f it were a work stoppage not involving unlawful actions, the question arises as to whether the Agency could, in view of the provisions of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations whereby an official is bound to ensure the continuity of the service and must not cease to exercise his functions without previous authorisation, deem participation in the collective action by the officials in question to be unlawful. Without overlooking the fact that a strike will necessarily affect continuity of service, the Tribunal considers that, if the answer to that question were yes, it would in practice deprive of all substance the exercise of a right, the existence of which the Agency does not deny and which, according to the case law, is lawful in principle (see, for instance, Judgments 615 and 2342 of the Tribunal). To make the exercise of that right conditional on obtaining leave of absence would clearly be incompatible with the principle itself, the necessary corollary of which is the freedom of officials to follow or not to follow a call to strike duly issued by their representative organisations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 11 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 615, 2342
Keywords:
collective rights; condition; consequence; continuance of operations; disciplinary measure; freedom of association; general principle; provision; right to strike; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; staff union; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2461
99th Session, 2005
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-3
Extract:
ESO considers that the complainant's internal appeal is not receivable according to Article R VI 1.02 of the Staff Regulations since he is no longer a staff member.
"The organisation is correct. The Staff Regulations do not give him any right of internal appeal. [...] The complainant alleges a contradiction between ESO's Staff Rules and Regulations [...] and Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute. In fact, the language of the Tribunal's Statute does not specifically require the organisation to provide specific internal remedies, it only requires that those actually existing be exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) and (2) of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article R VI 1.02 of ESO's Staff Regulations
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2450
99th Session, 2005
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]here is no rule or general principle that obliges an international organisation to reimburse its staff for taxes payable outside the host country pursuant to legislation which is not that of the host country."
Keywords:
applicable law; domestic law; general principle; headquarters; organisation; organisation's duties; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2414
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance evaluation; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2389
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Under [Staff] Rule [105.3], it is not sufficient for entitlement to home leave that internationally recruited staff members be serving in a country other than that of which they are nationals; they must also meet the required conditions. Thus, paragraph 2a of the Rule stipulates that a staff member shall be eligible for home leave provided that while performing his official duties he continues to reside in a country other than that of which he is a national. This condition is clearly not met in the case of a staff member who lived in his home country only during his early childhood and who, at the time of his appointment, had been residing for several decades, practically without a break, in the country where he performs his official duties."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Rule 105.3
Keywords:
appointment; condition; difference; duty station; home leave; nationality; non-local status; official; provision; residence; right; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The home country "is not necessarily that of the staff member's nationality. It could be the country with which he has the closest connection outside the country in which he is employed (see Judgment 1985, under 9), for instance the home country of his wife or of children whom he may have adopted or taken in but who he believes should keep up their connections with their native environment. Thus, according to Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c, the Director General, in exceptional circumstances, may authorise a staff member to take home leave in a country other than the country of his nationality, provided that the latter can show that he maintained his normal residence in that other country for a prolonged period preceding his appointment, that he continues to have close family or personal ties in that country and that his taking home leave there would not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulation 5.3 and Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1985
Keywords:
adoption; appointment; burden of proof; condition; definition; dependent child; difference; duty station; exception; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official travel; period; place of origin; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he purpose of home leave is to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections. Regulation 5.3, which denies home leave to staff members whose home country is the country of their official duty station or who continue to reside in their home country, is therefore self-explanatory. Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2, reflects the same reasoning, insofar as it provides that a staff member may lose entitlement to home leave if, following a change in his residential status, he is, in the opinion of the Director General, deemed to be a permanent resident of any country other than that of his nationality, provided that the Director General considers that the continuation of such entitlement would be contrary to the purposes for which the benefit was created."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulations 4.5, paragraph 2, and 5.3
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; condition; consequence; difference; duty station; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official; period; place of origin; purpose; refusal; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2377
98th Session, 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment beyond the statutory retirement age. Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05 "makes it clear that the decision whether or not to grant an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General's discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds, none of which has been established by the complainant. The fact that such extensions may have been granted to a number of other staff members is simply irrelevant in the circumstances. No one has a right to be retained beyond the applicable normal retirement age, which in the complainant's case was 60."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: AIEA Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05
Keywords:
age limit; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; contract; difference; discretion; equal treatment; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; lack of evidence; limits; refusal; retirement; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2376
98th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not renewed. He later reached a settlement agreement with the ILO which stated that the decision not to renew his contract would have no consequence on any future application submitted by him. He alleges a breach of the terms of the settlement agreement. "[T]he settlement, concluded well after the complainant's loss of his position as a staff member, was not a term or condition of his appointment, nor did it form part of the Staff Regulations. The Statute [of the Tribunal], in Article II(4), requires that where the dispute relates to an agreement outside the terms of employment of a staff member, the agreement must contain a provision giving the Tribunal competence over disputes with regard to its execution so that the Tribunal can hear such a dispute. There is none. The complaint is [therefore] irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 4, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; date; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vested competence;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 2362
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"By virtue of successive short-term contracts and extensions thereof, [the complainant's] service lasted for four years. The series of extensions and the grant of pension coverage and other benefits did not signify a change in her original status. Staff Rule 3.5(a) [...] cannot be invoked by her as proof that her appointment had been converted to fixed-term. While this provision ostensibly bestows on her 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment', it would be stretching the intent and signification of the provision to make the complainant a fixed-term official (see Judgment 1666). Had that been the purpose of the Rule, it would have explicitly so provided instead of stating that 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment [...] shall apply to [the official concerned]'. The complainant was recruited as a short-term official and remained one at all times."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 3.5(a) of the Rules Governing Conditions of Service of Short-Term Officials
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1666
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; commutation; contract; evidence; extension of contract; fixed-term; fringe benefits; fund membership; interpretation; official; period; provision; purpose; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; successive contracts; terms of appointment; unjspf;
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant's candidacy to a vacant post was rejected. "She states that her immediate supervisor [had] received a minute from HRD, instructing her that in preparing her shortlist of candidates, priority should be given to internal candidates, then to those persons who had been working for the Office for an extended period on what are regarded as 'precarious' conditions, such as herself, and lastly to other external candidates. She contends that, contrary to the instructions in the minute, her supervisor reviewed all the candidates in order to prepare her shortlist, disregarding those priorities, thus rendering the selection decision null and void. [The Tribunal considers that] what is important, however, is that the recruitment procedure in the Staff Regulations and the terms of the vacancy notice were complied with. The priorities for shortlisting candidates were merely indicated in a minute from HRD."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; information note; internal candidate; priority; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; staff regulations and rules; submissions; supervisor; terms of appointment; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2357
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It was said in Judgments 1835, 1836 and 1837 that the application of Article 71(2)[regarding the conditions of award of an education allowance] 'is at the discretion of the President of the Office'. It is not strictly accurate to describe a decision as to the application of Article 71(2) as discretionary. The question whether a particular school or university corresponds to a 'child's educational stage' is essentially a question of fact, albeit one that may, in some circumstances, permit of a value judgment. However, because of the nature of that question, a decision under Article 71(2) is subject to limited review on the same grounds as a discretionary decision properly so called. Thus, it will be reviewed only for procedural error, mistake of fact or law, the drawing of a clearly mistaken conclusion or misuse of authority. In particular, this Tribunal will not substitute its view of the facts for that reached by the President."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 71(2) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1835, 1836, 1837
Keywords:
abuse of power; allowance; case law; condition; decision; discretion; education expenses; enforcement; executive head; grounds; interpretation; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2354
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; condition; consequence; decision; due process; duty to inform; executive head; flaw; grade; grounds; independence; lack of evidence; official; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2352
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant's post was abolished and his appointment terminated. "It is clear from the [applicable] provisions that [...] the Staff Committee had to be consulted before the decision was taken to terminate the complainant's appointment. The purpose of consulting an advisory body, prior to terminating an official's appointment, is to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head. The Tribunal takes the view that it is established, by the evidence [...], that the Staff Committee was indeed consulted regarding the suppression of the [complainant's] post [...]. However, it considers that the Committee was not formally consulted with regard to the intention to terminate the complainant's appointment. [...] As the impugned decision was taken in breach of the applicable rules, it must be held unlawful and the Tribunal need not rule on the complainant's other pleas."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; condition; consequence; decision; due process; executive head; flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; purpose; recommendation; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant seeks the revision of certain rules and policies. EFTA submits that such a claim is irreceivable. "In this it is clearly correct. Relevantly, the Tribunal is competent only to hear complaints with respect to the non-observance of the terms of appointment or the provisions of EFTA's Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; iloat statute; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Much of the complainant's argument is directed to the proposition that the Commission cannot secure services of the standard specified in [Staff] Regulation 4.2 if it cannot retain those services beyond seven years, particularly as it has to compete for staff with other international organisations. That proposition is not self-evidently correct. Nor is it established by pointing, as the complainant does in his submissions, to international organisations which have a similar policy and which, according to the complainant, have or may have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitable staff. Moreover, [...] exceptions [are allowed] in the case of a need to retain 'essential expertise or memory in the Secretariat' ensures that, to that extent, its staffing needs can be satisfied."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CTBTO PrepCom's Staff Regulation 4.2
Keywords:
appointment; career; contract; enforcement; exception; general principle; lack of evidence; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; qualifications; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Although the embodiment of the seven year policy in [the] directive may properly be viewed as the prescribing of a term or condition upon which fixed-term contracts may be granted, it does not itself operate as the imposition of that term or condition. To be effective, a term or condition of the kind now in question must be incorporated in the contract, even if only by reference: a reference to the Staff Regulations and Rules is not sufficient because they do not incorporate the [...] directive in question. By implementing the seven year policy in the way that he purported to do in the present case, the Executive Secretary was attempting to enforce a term or condition that was not incorporated in the contract between the complainant and the Preparatory Commission."
Keywords:
appointment; career; complainant; condition; contract; effect; enforcement; exception; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Judgment 2314
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The post in respect of which the complainant was receiving a special post allowance was transferred but he has continued to perform the duties of the post. The Director-General has taken the view that transfer was equivalent to the abolition of the post and the allowance was terminated. The relevant Manual provision "does prohibit payment of a special post allowance when a post has been abolished. However, it does not and cannot relieve an employer of its duty to ensure proper remuneration for extra duties and responsibilities discharged by an employee over and above those of the substantive post which he or she holds."
Keywords:
abolition of post; executive head; official; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; post held by the complainant; provision; refusal; salary; special post allowance; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [EMBL] Staff Rules and Regulations do not provide an internal appeal mechanism for a person in the complainant's position. The Tribunal has frequently commented on the desirability and utility of internal appeal procedures which not only make the Tribunal's task easier but also substantially reduce its workload by bringing a satisfactory and less expensive resolution to many disputes at an earlier stage. In any case, the Tribunal remains the ultimate arbiter of the rights of international civil servants and it can, and will, exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; last instance; no provision; official; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; right; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2306
96th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks the creation of an Office of the Ombudsman. "So far as concerns the claim [...], the complaint is clearly irreceivable. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that [the] claim was made for the first time in the complaint to the Tribunal and, accordingly, no decision could have been made on that issue prior to the filing of the complaint. More importantly, the claim does not concern the non-observance of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of the [Organization], they being the only matters upon which this Tribunal is competent to adjudicate."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; iloat; internal appeal; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2300
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant contends that the [challenged] decision is unlawful because it is based on an opinion by the Joint Appeals Committee signed by its Chairman alone, whereas it is common practice in Interpol, as in other international organisations, for this type of document to be signed by all members of the Committee. The Organization rightly points out that, in accordance with Article 152(3) of the Staff Rules, the Chairman of the relevant Joint Committee shall sign the consultative opinion. This provision cannot be challenged on the grounds that different practices prevail in other organisations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 152(3) of Interpol's Staff Rules
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; decision; difference; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeals body; organisation; practice; provision; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >
|
