Condition (589,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Condition
Total judgments found: 322
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 50
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207, 1984 and 2773, the disciplinary authority has a discretion to determine the severity of a disciplinary measure justified by a staff member's misconduct, provided that the measure adopted is not manifestly out of proportion to the offence. It cannot be alleged that termination of the complainant’s appointment, the disciplinary measure chosen, was manifestly out of proportion to the degree of seriousness of the acts listed above, notwithstanding the complainant’s length of service with UNESCO and her recognised professional abilities. The Tribunal therefore considers that, in taking this decision, the Director General did not exceed the limits of his discretionary authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984, 2773
Keywords:
case law; condition; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[The] complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are largely interdependent. The Tribunal therefore considers that they should be joined in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; identical claims; identical facts; joinder;
Judgment 2938
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has determined that a staff member on leave on personal grounds is ipso facto no longer performing the duties of his former post and that, although during this leave he continues to be an official, the rights arising from the performance of his duties - remuneration, promotion, guarantee of employment, etc. - are suspended until he is reinstated. In the interests of the service the Agency may therefore use the vacant post (see Judgment 416, under 2). At the end of leave on personal grounds the employer nonetheless has a duty to reinstate the official provided that the two cumulative conditions laid down by [...] Article 40 [of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre] are met: firstly, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it (see Judgment 2034, under 11). This duty must be fulfilled promptly and with due regard for the dignity of the staff member concerned and the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 40 of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre
ILOAT Judgment(s): 416, 2034
Keywords:
accumulation; assignment; compassionate leave; condition; consequence; general principle; good faith; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; period; post held by the complainant; promotion; qualifications; reinstatement; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; salary; security of tenure; special leave; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vacancy;
Judgment 2915
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is correct that a vested right cannot be divested without the consent of the person to whom it belongs. However, it does not follow that a corresponding condition or obligation - in this case, the condition or obligation to retire at 60 - depends on continuing consent. A condition once accepted or an obligation once entered [...] endures unless and until it is performed or the person is released from it either absolutely or by substitution of a different and mutually agreed condition or obligation."
Keywords:
complainant; condition; effect; lack of consent; successive contracts; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although [...] the decision [to promote the complaintant to grade A5] did not create any rights because it stemmed from a factual error, it could be reversed only on certain conditions dictated by the principle of good faith. This principle requires, firstly, that the power to reverse a decision resting on a factual error must be exercised as soon as the competent authority notices the error in question and not at a later date chosen at its own convenience. Secondly, this principle requires that if the person concerned by a decision resting on a factual error has not contributed to this error, he or she must not suffer any unfavourable consequences from the application of the decision in question during the period before it was reversed. In particular, it is thus essential that any remuneration received by the official concerned on the basis of this decision should not give rise to reimbursement or any other form of restitution."
Keywords:
condition; consequence; decision; good faith; individual decision; mistake of fact; promotion; right; staff member's interest;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Although in theory the President of the Office may grant promotions at his or her discretion, the Tribunal's case law has it that, in view of the crucial role assigned to the Promotion Board in the procedure laid down in Article 49 of the Service Regulations and various subsequent guidelines, the President may promote someone only on the Board's recommendation (see Judgments 1600, under 10, and 1968, under 16 and 17). Thus, even if it is assumed that the President of the Office had the authority to appoint an official to grade A5, not by the usual procedures but in the context of the annual promotion exercise, such a promotion would have been lawful only if it rested on a prior recommendation to that effect from the Board."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 49 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1600, 1968
Keywords:
condition; decision; individual decision; promotion; promotion board; recommendation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In accordance with these principles, an individual decision affecting an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to him or her in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 2112, under 7(a), and 2201, under 4). As a general rule, such a decision may therefore be reversed only if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see Judgments 994, under 14, or 1006, under 2). Furthermore, where an individual decision does not create rights, provided that the principle of good faith is respected, it may be reversed at any time (see Judgment 587, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 587, 994, 1006, 2112, 2201
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; condition; decision; good faith; individual decision; promotion; repeal; right; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849
Keywords:
case law; cause; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; liability; mistake of fact; official; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;
Judgment 2893
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
"This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
Keywords:
breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
"An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
"The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; official; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2863
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
"The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."
Keywords:
condition; contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; recommendation; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Director-General departed from the Joint Advisory Appeals Board's recommendation. He was entitled to do so provided that he gave clear reasons for not following it, which he did. [...] From a formal point of view, therefore, the impugned decision is beyond criticism."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; formal requirements; grounds; internal appeals body; recommendation; right;
Consideration 7
Extract:
In March 2006 the complainant, who had been assigned to Zimbabwe since 1996, applied for a transfer, in the same grade, to ILO headquarters in Geneva to occupy the advertised post of Senior Procurement Officer. His candidature was rejected because he failed to meet three of the core requirements listed in the vacancy notice. Circular No. 658, series 6, states that the Office should ensure, in particular, that 'priority for mobility is given to staff members who have completed their tours of duty', i.e. their assignment in a particular duty station.
"It is not disputed that the complainant can avail himself of the mobility rules to return, as and when appropriate, to the Organization's headquarters. But that does not, of course, mean that he has a right to return to headquarters to take up a particular post without it being determined beforehand that the post to which he aspires corresponds to his skills."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 658, series 6
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competition; condition; criteria; duty station; field; grade; grounds; headquarters; organisation's duties; period; post; priority; qualifications; reassignment; refusal; request for transfer; right; vacancy notice; written rule;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2830
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated following a reorganisation.
"The Tribunal finds that the Organization has not shown that it actually did its utmost to find a post matching the complainant's qualifications. Furthermore, before simply terminating his appointment, the Organization ought to have ascertained whether he was prepared to accept a post at a lower grade to that which he had previously held (see Judgment 1782, under 11). It was not up to the complainant to prove that he was able to remain in the Organization's service in some capacity; it was up to the Organization to prove the contrary."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1782
Keywords:
burden of proof; condition; grade; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; post; qualifications; reassignment; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2783
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The complainant, who parks his car in the Vienna International Centre (VIC), is challenging the decision to double the monthly parking fee effective 1 January 2007.
"In the present case, the impugned decision affects the complainant not as a staff member of the Agency but in his capacity as a user of the VIC garage. Moreover, the financial conditions governing the use of this garage, which is merely a facility offered to the staff of the various international organisations occupying the VIC, do not form part of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the Agency's Staff Regulations.
'While the payment of the fee for the use of the garage does in fact take the form of a direct deduction from the Agency's staff members' salaries, this is simply a means of payment adopted for convenience sake, which does not in any way alter the nature of the fee and does not, in particular, have the effect of incorporating it into the complainant's terms of employment. In this respect, the deduction is comparable to those which an employer may effect from an employee's wages for the purpose of paying, for example, a tax or contribution that is levied at source; here too, the fact that the tax or contribution is so deducted does not afford grounds for considering it to be part of the employee's terms of employment.
This dispute does not therefore fall within the scope of the [...] provisions of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; competence of tribunal; condition; contract; deduction; effect; facilities; iloat statute; increase; official; payment; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2760
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2752
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 2745
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"'Constructive dismissal' is a phrase used to signify that an organisation has breached the terms of a staff member's contract in such a way as to indicate that it will no longer be bound by that contract."
Keywords:
breach; condition; contract; definition; implied decision; official; organisation; termination of employment;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 2524 that, although harassment and mobbing do not require bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent, 'behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question'. Thus, it was said in Judgment 2370 that conduct that 'had a valid managerial purpose or was the result of honest mistake, or even mere inefficiency' would not constitute harassment. However and as pointed out in Judgment 2524, 'an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524
Keywords:
bias; condition; conduct; consequence; definition; evidence; good faith; grounds; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of fact; organisation's duties; proportionality; qualifications; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2740
105th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Secretary General of the Organization decided to follow the Appeals Board's recommendations and thus to award the complainant compensation. By a letter of 2 October 2006 he notified the complainant that he nevertheless intended to make payment of the compensation subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce the exercise of all means of appeal against the WCO. "[T]he Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the Secretary General's letter of 2 October 2006 contained an unlawful clause which should definitely be censured, in that its purpose was to make the actual payment of the sum in question subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce all means of appeals.
An international organisation commits a serious breach of the general principles of law by violating, through such conduct, international civil servants' right of appeal, especially to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
acceptance; allowance; condition; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; payment; right of appeal; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
Consideration 10
Extract:
For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; claim; condition; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; limits; period; project personnel; provision; separation from service; short-term; written rule;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
