Right (635,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Right
Total judgments found: 225
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
"The decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual's rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
Keywords:
candidate; communication to third party; competition; disclosure of evidence; right; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3025
111th Session, 2011
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that an international organisation has a duty to provide a safe and adequate environment for its staff, and they in turn have the right to insist on appropriate measures to protect their health and safety (see Judgment 2706, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
official; organisation's duties; request by a party; right; working conditions;
Judgment 3005
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal observed in Judgment 782, under 1: 'According to the rules of good faith anyone to whom a promise is made may expect it to be kept, and that means that an international official has the right to fulfilment of a promise by the organisation that employs him. The right is conditional. One condition is that the promise should be substantive, i.e. to act, or not to act, or to allow. Others are that it should come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it; that breach should cause injury to him who relies on it; and that the position in law should not have altered between the date of the promise and the date on which fulfilment is due.'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; promise; right;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; grounds; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The interveners [...] are [...] in a similar legal situation to that of the complainant. They must therefore be granted the benefit of the rights recognised by this judgment."
Keywords:
complainant; consequence; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; right;
Judgment 2972
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Once it is accepted that an organisation has a right to assign new or different shift work patterns, it follows that a particular shift work pattern cannot constitute an acquired right."
Keywords:
acquired right; assignment; organisation; reorganisation; right; working conditions; working hours;
Judgment 2963
110th Session, 2011
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Quashing of a retroactive termination of appointment for reasons of health.
"It is well settled that an international organisation cannot retrospectively alter the rights and obligations of staff members to their detriment, whether by written rule or otherwise (see, for example, Judgments 595, under 5 and 6, 1669, under 17 and 18, and 1979, under 5(h))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 595, 1669, 1979
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; non-retroactivity; right; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; written rule;
Judgment 2959
110th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Quashing of a direct appointment to the post of Chief of Cabinet.
"[T]he rights of employees of international organisations to impugn decisions regarding appointments do not depend on their chances of successful appointment (see Judgments 1549, under 9, and 1272, under 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272, 1549
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; decision; right; right of appeal; status of complainant;
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, international civil servants do not have a right to promotion (see, for example, Judgments 1207, under 8, or 2006, under 12) and [...] decisions in this domain, which are taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation, are subject to only limited judicial review (see, for example, Judgments 1670, under 14, or 2221, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1207, 1670, 2006, 2221
Keywords:
case law; decision; discretion; executive head; judicial review; limits; official; promotion; right;
Judgment 2940
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;
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 2936
109th Session, 2010
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]rifling differences in the respective situations of staff members do not justify different treatment where the people concerned are in what may be regarded as comparable, albeit not identical positions vis-à-vis the rule applying to them [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 792, 2066
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; difference; equal treatment; general principle; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
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 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; case law; consequence; due process; implied decision; official; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;
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 11
Extract:
"Since the decision to promote the complainant to grade A5 stemmed from a clerical error, i.e. a purely factual error, and not from a genuine intention of its author, the Tribunal considers that it did not create rights for the person concerned and that it could therefore be subsequently reversed.
Indeed, one of the essential requirements of any administrative decision is that it should be consistent with its author's intention. Consequently, where that is not the case, it is important that the impact of the decision should be limited as much as possible, even though its existence cannot be denied. Similar considerations led the Tribunal to set aside the application of a decision resting on a purely factual error in an earlier case concerning the repayment of an indemnity which had been paid in error (see Judgment 1111, under 5). Although the instant case concerns a somewhat different issue, it is likewise appropriate to consider that the decision in question, which stems from a factual error, could not create any rights and that the competent authority was therefore entitled to reverse it at any time. Indeed, the opposite would be liable to conflict not only with the interests of the organisation concerned but also with the principle of equal treatment of officials, insofar as it could, in some extreme cases, result in preposterous individual decisions reached by pure oversight becoming final."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111
Keywords:
decision; equal treatment; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; organisation's interest; promotion; right;
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 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee. The Tribunal held that to the extent that the new specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office it should have been referred to the General Advisory Committee.
"It is trite law that "where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated" (see Judgment 2339, under 5). It is equally well established that if reasons are required, the reasons must be sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible so that a complainant knows why the appeal has been rejected and he is in a position to assess whether a complaint should be filed with the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; right; staff member's interest;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
