Intervention (70, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Intervention
Total judgments found: 85
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 911
64th Session, 1988
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Every staff member enjoys [...] freedom [of association]. Since the exercise of it may be affected by the Tribunal's judgment, the applications are receivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; freedom of association; intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 886
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Since the rights Mr. B. is relying on in his application [to intervene] were ruled on once and for all in Judgment 855, the res judicata rule bars him from raising the same issues again by other means and his application is therefore irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 855
Keywords:
intervention; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 879
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
"The res judicata rule applies to an intervener because by the very act of intervening he espouses the complainant's case. It is true that there are some arguments which he puts forward again and which those judgments did not address. But that does not mean that the conditions [...] for applying the res judicata rule are not met: between this case and the earlier ones there is identity in the parties, in the purpose of the suit and in the cause of action."
Keywords:
consequence; effect; intervention; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 860
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Intervening in a complaint that was already pending, [the complainant in the present case] threw in his lot with Mr [S.]'s and espoused the case as it stood at the date of his application. He did become a party to that case and so for him Judgment 657 does carry the authority of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657
Keywords:
consequence; effect; intervention; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 666
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Any person to whom the Tribunal is open under Article II of its Statute may apply to intervene in a case on the conditions stated in Article 17[2] of the Rules of court. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage, and the Tribunal decides whether they shall be allowed. The applications to intervene in the present case are receivable and the Tribunal's ruling on the merits of the complaints will hold good for the applications as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 17, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE RULES;
ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
intervention; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 608
52nd Session, 1984
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As to the applications to intervene, the organisation does not object to them and undertakes to apply the Tribunal's judgment in this case to all members of its local staff whose position is identical to that of the complainant."
Keywords:
enforcement; intervention; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 574
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The organisation pleads that the complaint fails by the doctrine of res judicata, in view of the fact that the complainant was an intervener in Judgment No. 365. The plea was dismissed on the grounds that the substance of the two claims was not the same: the first claim challenged a measure which had the force of a rule whereas the second concerned a decision of an individual nature. The case is referred back to the President for a new decision. The Tribunal stressed that the organisation should not have based its reply solely on res judicata, refraining from arguing the merits without having been granted permission to do so by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; general decision; individual decision; intervention; reply confined to receivability; res judicata; same purpose;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The condition that the parties should be the same is met here: "Although Mr. [H.] was not a complainant in the case in which the Tribunal gave judgment [...] He was an intervener, the Tribunal declared the intervention receivable, and it dismissed the applications to intervene together with the complaints. Mr. [H.] was therefore party to those proceedings."
Keywords:
effect; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 518
49th Session, 1982
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"That an intervener in a case before the Tribunal may have already filed an internal appeal and had it rejected, and that he has not himself filed a complaint with a tribunal, does not prevent him from applying to intervene in such a complaint provided he complies with the requirements of Article 17 of the Rules of court and Article II of the Statute and provided the judgment to be given by the Tribunal may affect his rights."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 17 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
internal appeal; intervention; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 496
48th Session, 1982
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Since the breach alleged is an infringement of the right to associate and since that right is enjoyed by every staff member, it is manifest that every staff member has a right which may be affected by the judgment to be given. It is unnecessary therefore for any staff members to show any further ground for his intervention." The interveners who ceased to be staff members at the time of their intervention "must show special ground for intervention."
Keywords:
cause of action; freedom of association; intervention; official; separation from service;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The staff association, being the formal organisation created under [the rules], seeks to intervene as a 'collective personality'. It is unnecessary to decide whether or not the association has such personality. Assuming that it has, it is not a personality which holds a contract of appointment by the organization so it is not a person to whom the Tribunal is open under Article II" of the Statute. The intervention is not receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
intervention; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff union;
Judgment 473
47th Session, 1982
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The officials in question, who have applied to intervene, have rights which may be affected by the judgment to be given [...] even though they have not filed a claim with the organisation. Their applications are receivable.
Keywords:
cause of action; internal remedies exhausted; intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 366
41st Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Since [the interveners themselves] failed to file a complaint in time [...] they may neither put forward pleas nor lodge claims which differ from those of the complainants. It is therefore necessary to consider only the content of the complaint, and the applications to intervene will fare in the same way as do the complaints."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; identical claims; intervention;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Many [...] officials [of the organisation] have filed applications to intervene. They are entitled to join in the present proceedings as interveners insofar as their factual and legal position is identical or at least similar to that of the complainants."
Keywords:
condition; intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 365
41st Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 366, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366
Keywords:
claim; complaint; identical claims; intervention;
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 366, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 366
Keywords:
condition; intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 314
39th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The interveners "have an interest in the quashing of the impugned decision [concerning the with holding of salary for strike action] and their applications are therefore receivable."
Keywords:
deduction; intervention; receivability of the complaint; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 300
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Since the complainants' claims for relief are dismissed in their entirety, so too are the applications to intervene, of which the receivability need not therefore be considered."
Keywords:
intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 278
37th Session, 1976
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"Although the applications to intervene [...] all of which have been submitted by [...] staff members who have an interest in the quashing of the impugned decision, are receivable, they are, like the complaints themselves, unfounded."
Keywords:
cause of action; intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 272
36th Session, 1976
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The interveners have not provided a clear and positive statement of their residence at the time of recruitment. "[T]he cases of the interveners should be remitted to the Director-General so that, in the light of this judgment [...] he may amend the [...] form [...] so as to show in each case the correct and agreed residence immediately prior to appointment with liberty to each intervener to apply to the Tribunal if agreement is not reached."
Keywords:
appointment; case sent back to organisation; intervention; residence;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Since the cases of the interveners are to be remitted to the Director-General because of the insufficiency of the evidence that is supplied with them the Tribunal can award no costs in respect of them."
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; costs; elements; intervention; lack of evidence; local status; no award of costs; non-local status;
Judgment 220
31st Session, 1973
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision is one the complainant impugns insofar as it "affects him as a French national". Staff members of French nationality whose interests are identical, "accordingly have an interest in intervening [...] Their intervention is therefore receivable. Staff members [...] of Belgian and Luxembourg nationality, who are subject to different national laws and regulations, have not the same interests as [the complainant], and accordingly their intervention is not receivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; intervention; nationality; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 82
14th Session, 1965
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The interveners [A and B], to whom [the] judgment [the application of which is requested] had awarded reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them, are holders of rights liable to be affected by the present judgment [...]. On the other hand, the interveners [X, Y and Z], insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right of that kind, and the staff association has no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61
Keywords:
cause of action; injury; intervention; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant requests compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the delay by the organisation in giving effect to the judgment. Intervenors x,y and z, insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right liable to be affected by the present judgment; they are also acting on behalf of the staff, who have no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61
Keywords:
cause of action; intervention; lack of injury; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The interveners submitted a document on 2 April. On 10 April the judgment was delivered, after the public hearing of 6 April. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage; "that does not necessarily mean that interveners are entitled to invoke up to the day of the proceedings any facts, evidence and new documents. [The material document] deals solely with points of law and raises no new points. Consequently [...] the organisation, [which] learned of this legal opinion three days before the oral proceedings began, has been able usefully to discuss the arguments and the conclusions. The [adversarial] procedure has thus been [followed]".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; intervention; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 61
10th Session, 1962
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The interventions of Messrs. X and Y, on behalf of the staff association, are not receivable, since the association "has no cause to intervene in the present proceedings". In as far as the interveners "acted on their own behalf, they have rights which may be affected by this judgment, and their intervention is receivable in as far as the [...] Tribunal is competent to pass judgment on the complaint itself."
Keywords:
intervention; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff union;
Judgment 51
8th Session, 1960
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The intervenors hold the same rights as the complainant and therefore their intervention must be declared receivable and the benefit of this judgment extended to them."
Keywords:
consequence; effect; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
