Ratione personae (699,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Ratione personae
Total judgments found: 53
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 3551
120th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. The complainant stated in the complaint form that he filed the complaint in his capacity as a former official. However, according the express terms of the SSA under which he was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, he has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 1034, under 3, and 3049, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1034, 3049
Keywords:
competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; special service agreement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 3549
120th Session, 2015
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. At no point in time did the complainant have the status of an official of the ICC. As the Tribunal has often recalled in its case law, external candidates for employment and persons who have not concluded a contract of employment with an organisation that has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not within the latter’s jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 803, under 3, 1554, under 10, 1964, under 4, and 3382, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 803, 1554, 1964, 3382
Keywords:
candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae;
Judgment 3542
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the Tribunal cannot hear complaints relating to recruitment procedures for external candidates, the complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal may not hear complaints challenging a decision to reject the candidature of an external applicant for a post in an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2657, under 3). This case law must apply here by analogy, since the complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding recruitment procedures within two administrative entities which are clearly identified as being separate, though they belong to the same international organisation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2657
Keywords:
candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3468
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is irreceivable and is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[I]t is clear that these issues concerned the application of a policy to the complainant while he was seeking consultancy work with the FAO but when he was no longer an official of the Organization. The policy had no practical or legal application to the complainant when he was an official of the FAO. Accordingly the issues sought to be raised by the complainant in his internal appeal and before the Tribunal are not issues concerning the non-observance of the terms of his appointment as an official of the FAO or of the application of the Staff Regulations applicable to him during his period of employment with that Organization. The complainant’s challenge is made as a potential consultant rather than as a former official. Consequently, his complaint is based on his status as a potential consultant. Having regard to Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant;
Judgment 3459
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear the complaint and summarily dismissed it.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he fundamental difficulty for the complainant in pursuing her complaint in this Tribunal is that she was not, at the time of the impugned decision, an “official” of the EPO for the purposes of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute having regard to the way that concept of “official” has been established and entrenched in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The complainant does not (and on her account of the facts probably could not) point to any contract under or by which she was appointed an official of the EPO. Her employment (in the loosest sense of the word) or engagement to work at the EPO was through a third party, a private company. Accordingly, her complaint is not one the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Keywords:
external collaborator; non official; ratione personae;
Judgment 3448
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] shows no evidence that he had entered into a contract of employment with the ILO for the period 1993 to 2002, as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgments 817, under 8, and 2926, under 7-9). During that period he was employed by a firm which the ILO had sub-contracted. It is a contract with the ILO concluded in accordance with the rules in force which conferred on him the status of an official bound to the Organization during the period from 2002 to 30 April 2010 (see Judgment 2926, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 817, 2926
Keywords:
non official; ratione personae; subcontractant;
Judgment 3426
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal has examined its competence ratione personae of its own motion since, when the complaint was filed [...], the complainant was formally described in his employment contract as a “consultant”, a term often used for external collaborators. In the complaint form, the complainant calls himself a staff member. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable since 1 January 2012 use the terms “staff members” and “staff” indiscriminately and that WIPO describes the complainant as a temporary employee on a short-term contract. The Tribunal finds that WIPO has consistently treated the complainant as a staff member. It is clear from the evidence that his contract provided for the payment of a salary, that he was subject to the disciplinary procedure – which was actually applied to him – and that he had access to internal appeal bodies. Moreover, WIPO admits that it has outsourced duties previously exercised by the complainant, which clearly shows that they were previously regarded as being performed internally. The Tribunal is therefore competent ratione personae to hear this case. Indeed, it had already implicitly accepted that it was competent to hear the complainant’s previous complaints."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; official; ratione personae; short-term; staff member; status of complainant;
Judgment 3383
118th Session, 2014
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant has never been an official of CERN and did not impugn a decision affecting his rights, his complaint is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3382
118th Session, 2014
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3381
118th Session, 2014
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint was summarily dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As there was no meeting of minds between the parties concerning an appointment and the complainant did not become a staff member of IOM and, therefore, not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint is clearly irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
appointment; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
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 3147
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal finds itself competent as the question raised in the complaint does not relate to the interpretation and execution of supernumerary contracts, but instead relates to the claim raised by a former staff member, that those supernumerary contracts were “fictitious” and that staff holding such contracts must be considered as regular staff members who are eligible to participate in the UNJSPF.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; ratione personae;
Judgment 3144
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
WIPO submits that the Tribunal has no competence to hear the complaint because, as a temporary employee, the complainant is not an official within the meaning of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. This objection is unfounded.
In two recent cases concerning WIPO the Tribunal recalled that it may rule on any employment relationship arising between an international organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. In addition, the Tribunal has noted that paragraph (b) of the introduction to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, on which the Organization relied then and is again relying in this case, in fact refers to persons engaged for short-term service as “staff members” (see Judgments 3090, under 4, and 3091, under 10). Under Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal, this case law applies to any complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3090, 3091
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione personae;
Judgment 3139
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Union regrets that the internal appeal procedure [...] was not completed, but it raises no objection to receivability on that account.
The Tribunal automatically examines the receivability of complaints filed with it. [...]. In Judgment 2892, the Tribunal held that the provisions of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing internal appeals did not provide for appeals by former staff members. In such circumstances, where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process (see for example Judgment 2840, under 21). Hence the Tribunal will not find that the complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2892
Keywords:
former official; iloat statute; internal appeal; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2919
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Absent a connection flowing from a contract or deriving from employment status, the Tribunal is not competent to entertain the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae;
Judgment 2903
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 to 11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
"The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
"In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
"Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;
Judgment 2888
108th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already had occasion to rule that it has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to a contract concluded with an independent contractor or collaborator which contains [...] an arbitration clause (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), and 2688, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 2688
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; definition; external collaborator; ratione personae; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2017
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(A)
Extract:
"The complainant enjoyed the status of official from October 1974 to the end of December 1992. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 he was employed on the basis of special agreements, which contained an arbitration clause providing for an "arbitral panel" composed of three members. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to the effects of the relationship between the [organisation] and the complainant from October 1974 to the end of December 1992."
Keywords:
arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; date; external collaborator; limits; ratione personae; status of complainant;
Judgment 1752
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's wife, who was a member of the staff of the International Labour Office committed suicide. Among other things, the complainant seeks awards of damages for the moral injury suffered by his wife as well as by his son and himself. "[The complainant] has access to the Tribunal under Article II(6) of its Statute only as the successor to any rights his wife may have had, since she alone was an official of the ILO. He may claim damages only for moral injury he says she suffered in its employ because of its failure to treat her with due care or for whatever other reason."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II(6) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
injury; locus standi; moral injury; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; status of complainant; successor;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
