|
|
 |
|
|
Ratione personae (699,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Ratione personae
Total judgments found: 53
< previous | 1, 2, 3
Judgment 1644
83rd Session, 1997
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 11-12
Extract:
The UPAEP recruited the complainant in 1969. She was seconded to the STES at the International Bureau from 1 June 1974 to 18 December 1976 and from 16 December 1989 to 31 December 1992 and while there was covered by the UPU Staff Rules and Regulations. But, being a member of the UPAEP's translation service in Montevideo, she had the status of a staff member of its General Secretariat, and it is not an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
[...]
Several judgments do affirm the Tribunal's competence to entertain complaints from staff members of the UPU's translation services. Judgment 122 [...] ruled that the Tribunal was competent to entertain a complaint from a translator appointed by the UPU to the English Translation Service on a six-month contract that was twice renewed. The Tribunal held that, the Director-General of the Union having accepted its jurisdiction, this acceptance was also binding as regards the language groups since it was a service within the framework of the UPU. But that ruling does not apply here. Translation into English was done by a permanent central service of the International Bureau and by analogy its staff had the same status as the employees of the Union. Likewise, Judgments 868 [...], 1013 [...] and 1043 [...] were about cases in which a translator from the Arab Language Group was challenging dismissal. The Tribunal said that the language groups "lack legal personality of their own" and that the UPU's recognition of its jurisdiction held good "for the Arab and other language groups of the Union as well" and that it was competent because the complainant was a staff member of the UPU and was guaranteed the same status as the employees of the International Bureau. This case is quite different. The complainant is a staff member not of the UPU but of the UPAEP. She had the status of a staff member of the International Bureau only while on secondment to Bern. The case law she cites is irrelevant to a dispute with an international organisation that has not recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
So she cannot succeed in her plea -- which she may plead before a domestic court -- that refusal to entertain her case would be denial of due process and contrary to general principles, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the American Convention on Human Rights of 22 November 1969. However valid the principle she cites -- that an employee of an international organisation is entitled to the safeguard of an impartial ruling by an international tribunal on any dispute with the employer -- the Tribunal cannot but declare that it is not competent.
Keywords:
competence; ratione personae;
Judgment 1554
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant is wrong in contending that for challenging the non-renewal of his contract the time limit of ninety days was somehow held over because of a connexion with his application for a post. His complaint shows two distinct elements: the non-renewal of his contract on 31 January 1994 and his unsuccessful application for a post in April 1994. His failure to file a complaint with the Tribunal within ninety days of 31 January 1994 means that any claim in relation to his contract is time-barred. As for his application for a post, by the time he made it he was no longer an employee of the Organisation. Since an outside candidate for employment does not have access to the Tribunal his complaint is irreceivable in that regard as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; non-renewal of contract; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1399
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The first [question] is whether the complainant may come to the Tribunal if he is no longer on the staff of CERN and that is the reason why the Director-General has declined to entertain his internal appeal. There need be no doubt about the answer. [...] The Tribunal is open to any official, 'even' - as Article II (6)(a) of the Statute puts it - 'if his employment has ceased', who lodges a complaint alleging non-observance of the terms of his contract or of the rules that apply to him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (6)(A) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; iloat statute; locus standi; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Inasmuch as Rule VI 1.01 [of the Staff Regulations] confers the right of appeal on 'every member of the personnel' it may be that someone does forfeit that right on leaving the organization and so ceasing to be a staff member provided that the issues they are objecting to or the decisions they are challenging did not occur before they left. There is no danger thereby of any miscarriage of justice since [...] a former official who alleges breach of contract or of the rules he was subject to may still come to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CERN STAFF REGULATION VI 1.01
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; internal appeal; locus standi; ratione personae; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 1383
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
The organization contends that the Tribunal lacks competence to hear a complaint from a "temporary adviser", whose status does not imply the right of appeal. But the Tribunal finds that the organization has described her "as holding an appointment as [a] short-term consultant. [...] Her contract was for a total of over ninety days, she was therefore not a 'temporary advisory' whithin the meaning of [WHO Manual paragraph] II.12.590." holding a "temporary short-term appointment as a consultant [...] she therefore qualified as a 'staff member'" with the right to appeal. "The rules draw no distinction between 'regular' staff members and the holders of temporary appointments."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.12.590
Keywords:
duration of appointment; external collaborator; internal appeal; locus standi; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; short-term; staff member; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 702
57th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1, Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that even though the complainant was never strictly speaking a staff member of the organization his link with it was more than a purely casual one. Accordingly, the organization's objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction is overruled.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae; short-term; status of complainant;
Judgment 701
57th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1, Summary
Extract:
See Judgment 702, consideration 2, summary.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 702
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae; short-term; status of complainant;
Judgment 580
51st Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant, an international civil servant, challenged a candidacy to the post of Director-General. The Organisation pleads that "if the complainant had a cause of action, he would have an unfair advantage over candidates who, not being members of the ILO staff, do not have access to the tribunal. But the alleged breach of equality is a corollary of the provision in the Statute which determines the conditions of access to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal may not review the lawfulness of that provision. The plea fails."
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competence of tribunal; equal treatment; executive head; locus standi; ratione personae;
Judgment 449
46th Session, 1981
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complaint was filed against an organisation which has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction but never employed the complainant as a member of its staff. Nor does the complainant allege having acceded to any of the rights of one of its officials. The complaint is summarily dismissed.
Keywords:
locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 394
43rd Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant, the brother of a deceased official, was not himself a member of the organization. "Nor is it proved that he was a person to whom the official's right devolved on his death, nor that he might derive rights from the contract of employment of the deceased, nor from the provisions of the staff regulations. Hence, in view of Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal, he has no locus standi and his complaints must [...] be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
family relationship; locus standi; ratione personae; successor;
Judgment 378
42nd Session, 1979
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Preamble; second paragraph
Extract:
The complainant died in an accident after filing suit. His family wished to pursue the proceedings and not withdraw suit.
Keywords:
case pending; complainant; consequence; death; ratione personae; successor;
Judgment 67
11th Session, 1962
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal recognises that as a result of holding that it lacks jurisdiction, the complainant is thereby regrettably deprived of any means of judicial redress against the injury sustained as a result of the alleged violations of her contract; but the Tribunal, being a court of limited jurisdiction, is bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; effect; external collaborator; locus standi; ratione personae; right of appeal; vested competence;
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was recruited for a conference; her contract stipulated that she would not be considered as a member of the staff. Following a serious accident which she suffered whilst in the service of the organization, she requested that the latter pay her the amount of the indemnity offered to her in compensation for her permanent incapacity, under the individual insurance policy. The Tribunal considers the complainant as a purely casual employee and that it lacks jurisdiction.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; external collaborator; locus standi; ratione personae; right of appeal; status of complainant;
Judgment 46
8th Session, 1960
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, "who is neither an official nor a former official of [the organization] and whose wife, a former official of the organization, is not deceased, is not qualified to institute proceedings before the Tribunal" under the terms of [Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant; successor;
Judgment .21
Sessions of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, 1946
League of Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
ratione personae;
< previous | 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
|
|
