Locus standi (55, 71, 73, 74, 673,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Locus standi
Total judgments found: 92
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 3343
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting as a staff representative, challenges the Organisation’s direct placement of a contract with an external consulting firm.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; locus standi; outsourcing; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Unless it can be shown that the alleged violation of the rule has a direct and immediate bearing on the employment status or rights of employees, the staff representative does not have standing to bring the complaint. In this case there is no such violation. It follows that in her capacity as a staff representative, the complainant clearly does not have standing to bring this complaint."
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Considerations 2 and 3
Extract:
"On the issue of receivability, the complainant takes the position that she is acting to protect the collective interests of the staff. She contends that these interests are not limited to matters such as remuneration and other working conditions, but also include the broader interest of ensuring that the EPO respects its own laws. She claims that other than staff representatives, there is nobody either within or outside the EPO in a position to challenge a direct placement.
It is clear that this complaint is irreceivable and it will be dismissed. Chapter 2 of Title II of the Service Regulations provides a mechanism for staff representation at the EPO including the establishment of a Staff Committee, its functions (Article 34), composition (Article 35) and competence (Article 36). However, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2649, under 8, “in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the [EPO] by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2649
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3342
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as members of the Staff Committee, challenge the competence of the President of the Office to appoint Vice-Presidents on an ad interim basis.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The common rights and interests identified by the complainants may arguably be legitimate interests in a broad political or organisational sense. However they are not rights or interests of a character that are justiciable in the Tribunal."
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Considerations 10 and 11
Extract:
"Earlier judgments decide[d] that members of a Staff Committee can invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to enforce rights conferred on them by their terms of appointment or by the Service Regulations. So much is clear from Judgment 1147, consideration 4. This has been recognised in a number of judgments since which have accepted that individual officials can act as representatives to preserve what have been described as “common rights and interests” (see Judgment 2562, consideration 10). However the expression “common rights and interests” is a reference to enforceable legal rights and interests derived from terms of appointment or under the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2649, consideration 8, “in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employment status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”. A similar statement of the principle is found in Judgment 3115, consideration 3.
That approach was comparatively recently followed by the Tribunal in determining one of a number of issues about receivability raised in the context of the employment by the EPO of external contractors (see Judgment 2919, consideration 8). Of particular relevance in that judgment for present purposes was the Tribunal’s consideration of a challenge sought to be made to the engagement of external contractors. The complainants, who were permanent employees of the EPO and members of the Munich Staff Committee, sought to raise the question of whether permanent posts should be established in order to carry out the tasks otherwise undertaken by external contractors. The Tribunal said at consideration 6:
“As the creation of permanent posts rests exclusively within the President’s discretion under Article 10(2)(d) of the European Patent Convention, this case is not a complaint alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of terms of appointment or the Staff Regulations and is, therefore, irreceivable.”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 2562, 2649, 2919, 3115
Keywords:
locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; locus standi; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Judgment 3341
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting as successive Chairmen of the Central Staff Committee (CSC), impugn the President’s decision not to submit to the Administrative Council a CSC document regarding the protection of human rights within the Office.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; locus standi; plenary judgment; staff representative;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he complainants have no specific right of access to the Council in the capacities which they identify."
Keywords:
locus standi;
Judgment 3247
116th Session, 2014
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"In a case such as the present, jurisdiction is limited and defined by organisations submitting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the complainant being an official (or former official) of an organisation that has so submitted (see Judgments 2503, consideration 4, and 3049, consideration 4). The complainant was not an official of the Global Fund at any relevant time. She was an official of UNOPS, which has not submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the complainant’s complaint save for determining whether it has jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore not receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2503, 3049
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 3206
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.
Consideration 20
Extract:
“[T]he complainant has no cause of action in seeking the repayment of [the] emoluments [paid to the colleague whose appointment he challenges] or calling into question her pension rights, as these measures would have no bearing on his own situation (see, for example, Judgment 2281, under 4(a) and (b)).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2281
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; lack of injury; locus standi; pension entitlements;
Judgment 2755
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant challenges an appointment on the grounds that it was made without a competition, or even a call for candidatures. She filed her complaint both as an ILO official and in her capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee. The defendant contends that the complaint is irreceivable insofar as it has been filed on behalf of the Staff Union Committee. "The Tribunal considers that the debate concerning the receivability of the complaint, insofar as it was filed by the complainant in her capacity as Chairperson of the Office's Staff Union Committee, has no bearing on the outcome of proceedings, since the complaint is receivable having been filed by an official with locus standi."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2649
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
Keywords:
breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2503
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The evidence on file shows that the complainant was never an official of Eurocontrol, and the only contracts he has produced are temporary contracts signed with a temporary employment agency [which supplied him to the defendant] and governed by French law. According to Article II of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials or such provisions of the Staff Regulations as are applicable to their case. Since the complainant is not an official of Eurocontrol, and cannot produce any employment contract signed with the latter, it follows, as the Agency rightly contends, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; contract; domestic law; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; successive contracts;
Judgment 2387
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant serves as President of the Eurocontrol section of the European Civil Service Federation. He asks the Tribunal to quash an instruction which, he submits, causes him injury and directly affects the interests he must defend as a trade union leader. "The Tribunal finds that the complainant does not show a direct cause of action in this case which would allow him to challenge the disputed instruction, since the latter was applicable only to the staff of CFMU, a body to which he does not belong. Insofar as he pleads in his capacity as trade union leader, he would be entitled to file a complaint with the Tribunal only on the basis of his personal employment relationship with the Agency - for instance by challenging measures which concern him personally on account of his duties - but not in order to defend the collective interests of trade union members. On this point the Tribunal refers to consistent precedent (see, for instance, Judgment 1542 delivered on 11 July 1996)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1542
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; collective rights; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Although the disputed decision is regulatory in character, it applies generally to a category of staff members whom it may adversely affect. The case law has it (see Judgments 1451 and 1618) that in such a case there is no need to await an individual decision before an appeal can be considered receivable, and that the staff members concerned have an interest in challenging the lawfulness of the general decision which may affect them. Their complaints are therefore receivable ratione personae."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618
Keywords:
case law; complainant; complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 2111
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal acknowledges that the relationship between officials and international organisations does not come to an end when they cease to work (see in this respect Judgment 986). It must therefore be recognised that former officials who consider that the terms of their contracts of employment or Staff Regulations have been disregarded, or that the administration has not accorded them the protection and guarantees deriving from their position as international civil servants, may avail themselves of the means of recourse available for the recognition of their rights [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 986
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; locus standi; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service;
Judgment 2102
92nd Session, 2002
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The duty laid on international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration and not to impair their dignity may extend beyond the term of their appointment. In charging a staff member with misconduct in the performance of duty an organisation must observe due process, otherwise it may be held liable even after its contractual or statutory ties with the official have ceased, and the Tribunal will entertain such matters."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; locus standi; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; separation from service;
Judgment 2036
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Members of an advisory body are entitled to challenge a measure (for which an advisory opinion should have been sought) on the grounds that prior consultation with the advisory body did not take place.
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; complainant; consultation; decision; locus standi; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2008
90th Session, 2001
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[The organization] submits that the Tribunal is not competent to entertain the complaint because, having left [the organization] many years ago the complainant is not in a position to assert any statutory or contractual rights: he benefited from a special extra-statutory arrangement made ex gratia and may not assert for his family any right arising under the terms of his appointment. The objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction fails: [the organization] allowed its former employee to retain coverage by a health insurance scheme which he had originally been able to join only because of his employment relationship with [it]. Whether the continued protection he was granted albeit ex gratia may also be extended to his family can be determined only by ascertaining his rights as a former employee of the organization."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; ex gratia; extension of contract; health insurance; locus standi; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; right; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 1980
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5 and 10
Extract:
"The complainants contend that Judgment 1663 was not properly executed. According to a general principle, a judgment ordinarily affects only the parties to the suit and applies only to the issues raised in it. The Tribunal has applied that principle in judgments concerning monetary claims by staff members of organisations (see Judgment 1935, [...] under 4 to 6). The complainants were not parties to the proceedings that led to Judgment 1663 and so are not entitled to benefit from it unless they can invoke some special ground."
The complainants were unable to do so. Therefore the Tribunal found that, "having no locus standi to apply for the execution of Judgment 1663, the complainants cannot plead that the execution of the judgment was formally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1663, 1935
Keywords:
execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties;
Judgment 1979
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935
Keywords:
binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1964
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; locus standi; medical examination; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 1938
88th Session, 2000
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant worked continuously for the organization for 17 years under various short term contracts - including contractual service agreements - after his fixed-term appointment as a staff member expired. "In practice he is seeking to obtain a revision of the whole of his career from 1976 to 1996. But he himself accepted the contractual conditions offered to him. He did not challenge the decision taken in 1979 not to renew his fixed-term appointment and not to convert it into a permanent appointment. Moreover, he offers no legally valid argument to challenge the way he has been treated since 1979. His claims must therefore be dismissed [...]."
Keywords:
complainant; contract; duration of appointment; external collaborator; fixed-term; locus standi; project personnel;
Judgment 1934
88th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant cannot invoke in his favour res judicata in a case to which he was neither party nor intervener."
Keywords:
complainant; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; res judicata;
Judgment 1845
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Under Article II(6) of its Statute the Tribunal is open to a former staff member. However, Article II(5) restricts the competence of the Tribunal, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of a staff member or of the provisions of the applicable staff regulations. On expiry of the complainant's contract, he ceased to be a staff member. His complaint, concerning his non-selection [to the post of assistant to the head of administration] does not involve any allegation of the violation of any rights which he enjoyed under his contract or the Staff Regulations insofar as they continued to apply to him. The Tribunal therefore [cannot] entertain the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OFTHE STATUTE;
ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; contract; enforcement; external candidate; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
