|
|
 |
|
|
Consultation (528,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Consultation
Total judgments found: 63
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4797
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the modifications made to the procedure for examining patent applications and contest the validity of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; consultation; staff union;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Cases arise in the Tribunal where the defendant organisation has failed to consult a person or a body, which should have been consulted under the relevant rules, and the Tribunal may make orders which require that consultation take place and the Tribunal may also set aside the decision made without consultation (see, for example, Judgment 4230). But setting aside the decision is not an inevitable outcome following a conclusion that consultation should have, but did not, take place.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4230
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
Consideration 11
Extract:
In the present case, the failure to consult the GAC occurred over a decade ago. Indeed, as noted earlier, the GAC was abolished in 2014, almost a decade ago. It cannot now be consulted. There is a suggestion in the pleas of both the complainants and the EPO that the Notice is no longer in force. If so, this would be relevant and militate strongly against granting relief based on the failure to consult. But even if it is in force, it is not apparent to the Tribunal that the Notice’s continued implementation would cause any real prejudice or injury to the complainants or the staff of the Office more generally. In these circumstances, it is clearly not advisable to rescind the decision adopting and promulgating the Notice notwithstanding the failure to consult the GAC. However, while Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute contemplates the awarding of compensation there should be none in the present case. That is because a staff representative, bringing proceedings in that capacity, is not entitled to an award of moral damages (see Judgment 4575, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4575
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; consultation; iloat statute;
Consideration 9
Extract:
While it is true the [Practice and Procedure Notice 03/11 (PPN 03/11)] concerns the procedures applicable to patent applications, it nonetheless directed, as the Tribunal apprehends it, that the primary examiner identifies and, it appears, records “the three names of the members of the future Examining Division” and “consult [with] the future members, in order to ensure that the others share his preliminary opinion”. At least in this respect, the Notice concerned the work to be performed and the way it was performed as comprehended by the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3053 […]. Accordingly, the [General Advisory Committee] should, on a possible very wide reading of Article 38(3) of the Service Regulations, have been consulted.
Keywords:
consultation; staff union;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that Communiqué 2/17 is unlawful because Rule 12d of the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention, concerning the appointment and re-appointment of the members of the Boards of Appeal, which is one of the provisions forming the basis for the Communiqué, was itself adopted under a flawed procedure. He considers that, to the extent that Rule 12d governs the way in which the performance of the members of the Boards is evaluated, it should have been submitted for an opinion to the Committee on Patent Law which was created by a decision of the Administrative Council (CA/D 3/94) [...].
Under paragraph 5 of Decision CA/D 3/94, “[t]he Committee [on Patent Law] shall advise the Administrative Council” on various questions connected with its object [...]
[I]t is clear from the aforementioned provisions, and also from other provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision CA/D 3/94, that consulting the Committee on matters falling within the scope of its competence is merely an option for the Administrative Council and not a mandatory formality.
Keywords:
consultation; interpretation of rules;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues, in the first place, that the procedure leading to the adoption of Communiqué 2/17 was flawed because it was not submitted to the General Consultative Committee (GCC) [for consultation].
[...]
Article 1(4) of the Service Regulations provides that the regulations are to apply to members of the Boards of Appeal “in so far as they are not prejudicial to their independence”. The appraisal of members of those Boards is one of the particular problems associated with the guarantees of independence from which those members benefit. In addition, relating more generally to measures that specifically deal with the conditions of employment of members of the Boards of Appeal, it is apparent from the file [...] that, in view of this requirement for independence, it was increasingly seen as inappropriate for such measures to be subject to consultation with the GCC, especially given that that body is chaired by the President of the Office and half of its members are appointed by him. As a consequence, it became the practice, for measures of this type, to replace consultation with the GCC by consultation with the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, an autonomous authority provided for in Rule 12b of the Implementing Regulations to the Convention, whose role, under paragraph 3 of that rule, includes “advis[ing] the President of the Boards of Appeal on matters concerning the functioning of the Boards of Appeal Unit in general” [...]. This practice was eventually codified in 2019 by the insertion of paragraph 8 into Article 38 of the Service Regulations, which expressly provides for consultation with the Presidium in such a situation rather than with the GCC.
This is the procedure that was followed for the drafting of Communiqué 2/17. Admittedly, the new version of Article 38 was not in force at that time. However, as just explained, even before the amendment was made to the Service Regulations, a practice existed to that effect and, contrary to what the complainant maintains, was already in use at the time when the Communiqué was issued, as evidenced by examples supplied by the EPO of previous consultations on other matters. Furthermore, although it is well-established case law that a practice cannot become legally binding where it contravenes rules already in force (see, for example, Judgments 4555, consideration 11, and 4026, consideration 6), the Tribunal considers that, in view of the aforementioned wording of Article 1(4) of the Service Regulations, the practice in question cannot be regarded as contravening the applicable rules. The lack of consultation with the GCC did not, therefore, constitute an irregularity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4026, 4555
Keywords:
consultation; independence; interpretation of rules; practice; rating;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 13
Extract:
In Judgment 4609, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that its case law “requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties [...] (see, for example, Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7)”. Similarly, in Judgment 4399, consideration 9, the Tribunal noted that “a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken” was necessary. While it is true that this case law concerned individual transfers and not a collective transfer as in the present case, the Tribunal considers that the Organisation is wrong to submit that this requirement does not apply here because there is nothing in its Staff Regulations and Rules of Application imposing such an obligation in the context of a collective transfer carried out in the interests of the service.
Firstly, the absence of a binding provision to this effect in the applicable rules cannot permit an organisation to disregard the principles established by the Tribunal’s case law. Secondly, the fact that the transfer was collective rather than individual does not exempt the Organisation from this fundamental requirement. Although the Tribunal’s case law has it that the general principle protecting a staff member’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see, for example, Judgments 4593, consideration 7, and 4283, consideration 6), in the present case, even if the impugned decision was collective in scope, it was obviously not impersonal. The Tribunal considers that a decision which, as in this case, notifies specifically identified staff members of their new individual postings with effect from 4 July 2019 cannot be considered an impersonal decision.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by Eurocontrol’s argument that it would not be “conceivable or even possible” for an organisation to consult individually each staff member before a collective transfer on the scale of that at issue in the present case, which affected over 600 staff members. The Organisation cannot refer to the scale of the collective transfer in support of its argument that it was not required to allow every staff member to comment before transferring her or him, even if this was done in a manner that was adapted and appropriate to the particular situation of this major reorganisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4283, 4399, 4451, 4593, 4609
Keywords:
consultation; general decision; right to be heard; transfer;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that, owing to the circumstances in which the complainant’s transfer took place, without him being afforded any opportunity to express his views or to be heard before it was put into effect, that transfer was bound to hurt and shock him and thereby cause him substantial and serious moral injury. The Tribunal considers that this moral injury will be fairly redressed by awarding the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 euros.
Keywords:
consultation; moral injury; right to be heard; transfer;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 7
Extract:
An accusation of bad faith must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof. In the present case, there is no persuasive evidence that the Organisation intentionally submitted false or imprecise information to the Contracting States in order to mislead them. In addition, even if misleading information had been provided to the representatives of the Contracting States, there is no evidence from which it could be inferred that this had any bearing on the actual decision made.
Keywords:
bad faith; consultation;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that [the] requirement of consultation was all the more important given that the composition of the Invalidity Committee – which, under article 10.4 of the Staff Regulations, includes a medical practitioner appointed by the official concerned, another medical practitioner appointed in agreement with the first medical practitioner, and a member appointed by the Staff Union Committee – constituted a safeguard for the complainant that was not provided by the composition of the multidisciplinary team, which was made up solely of persons appointed by the Organization.
The fact referred to by the Organization in its submissions, that the secretary of the Invalidity Committee had informed the complainant in the email forwarding the report of 6 February 2017 to her that “[t]he procedure before the Invalidity Committee [was] now complete” and that “any decision taken following that report [would] be communicated to [her] directly by the Administration”, did not prevent the further consultation of that body that was thus required. The inclusion of these statements, which are standard formulations used when communicating such reports, plainly could not prevent the Invalidity Committee from exercising its authority if the multidisciplinary team failed in its task of identifying a suitable position.
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; invalidity;
Judgment 4550
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In support of his claims against decision CA/D 2/14, the complainant argues subsidiarily that this decision was adopted unlawfully because the composition of the General Advisory Committee, which was consulted prior to the deliberation of the Administrative Council, was flawed. However, pleas of this nature cannot be usefully raised in the present proceedings. Indeed, the complainant cannot approbate and reprobate. The invocation of the right to freely associate upon which he wished to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction renders irrelevant the question whether the decision was also legally flawed for the other reasons raised by the complainant in this case and therefore shall not be examined by the Tribunal (see above-mentioned Judgment 4482, consideration 6, and Judgment 4483, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4482, 4483
Keywords:
consultation; freedom of association; general decision;
Judgment 4500
134th Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish the Joint Commissary Committee.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law regarding consultation states, in consideration 13 of Judgment 4230, for example, that “a proper consultation must allow a reasonable amount of time for the consulted body to discuss the issue, have its principal questions answered and provide reasoned advice or recommendations, and must also allow time for the deciding authority to take that advice into consideration prior to taking the final decision. In Judgment 380, consideration 21, the Tribunal stated: ‘Where there is only a simple obligation to consult, the decision-maker’s duty is to listen or at most to exchange views. The object of the consultation is that [she or] he will make the best decision and the assumption is that [she or] he will not succeed in doing that unless [she or] he has the benefit of the views of the person consulted. [...]’”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 380, 4230
Keywords:
consultation; staff union;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation; staff union;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends there is a fundamental or inherent right of staff to meaningful consultation, referring to Judgments 1488 and 1062. However, these cases concerned the operation of specific provisions in the Service Regulations and do not establish the fundamental right contended for, nor has it been otherwise recognised by the Tribunal. Insofar as the complainant relies on the alleged violation of this asserted right, his complaint is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1062, 1488
Keywords:
cause of action; consultation; general decision; right;
Consideration 9
Extract:
There can be no doubt that effective consultation with staff is a desirable objective recognised in a number of judgments of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 4230). But the right to freely associate fundamentally concerns the right of staff to organise themselves, free of interference from the Administration, in order to advance their collective interests which can also involve advancing individual interests though collectively. Ordinarily that would occur through a staff union or staff association (whether recognised in the rules or not, see Judgment 2672, considerations 9 and 10) and by officials representing those bodies. Those interests will include levels of remuneration and terms and conditions of employment and embrace, without describing matters exhaustively, security of employment, safety in the workplace and post-employment income. A necessary incident of freedom of association is that the staff representatives have an opportunity to discuss staff grievances with the administration of an international organisation even if the opportunity is created by strike action (see, for example, Judgment 4435, consideration 9). While bodies such as the LACs and the GAC provided an avenue for consultation and discussion, it was an avenue outside the framework comprehended by the notion of freedom of association. That is because it was not consultation as part of a broader and integrated process of collectively advancing and protecting the interests of staff through staff unions or staff associations but rather was a singular, discrete and, in this sense, isolated process. As a result of decision CA/D 2/14, LSCs continued in name though fundamental and unlawful changes were made to the manner in which members of LSCs were elected, a matter addressed in another judgment adopted at this session (see Judgment 4482). Nonetheless LSCs were given, by operation of new Article 37 of the Service Regulations, a role at a local level to engage in discussion, on behalf of staff at the local level, about matters including those concerning conditions of employment of those staff. These arrangements are consistent with the right of staff to freely associate, and the abolition of another parallel system of consultation embodied in the LACs did not compromise or deny that right of staff at a local level. In the result, the complainant has not established the abolition of the LACs was unlawful for the reason he advanced.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2672, 4230, 4435, 4482
Keywords:
consultation; freedom of association; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 4419
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;
Judgment 4418
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the Administration’s failure to respect the statutory time limit for the submission of documents to the General Advisory Committee for the purposes of consultation prior to the adoption of a New Pension Scheme and a corresponding Salary Savings Plan for employees taking up their duties with the EPO on or after 1 January 2009.
Considerations 6-7 and 11
Extract:
There are numerous judgments of the Tribunal concerning the legal consequences of the failure of an organisation to consult with representative bodies before decisions are made by the organisation and what relief should be granted.
In recent cases concerning the EPO where failure to consult had been established, on some occasions decisions have been set aside or quashed (see, for example, Judgment 3522) but, on other occasions, they have not (see, for example, Judgment 4385).
[…]
In the present case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the contentious October 2008 decisions should be quashed. The decisions were tainted only with a procedural flaw of lesser importance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3522, 4385
Keywords:
consultation; procedural flaw;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; consultation;
Judgment 4385
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge a general decision concerning tax adjustment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation;
Judgment 4230
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to introduce a maximum length of employment under short-term appointments in breach of applicable rules on consultation with staff representatives.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation; decision quashed; staff representative;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order that the FAO follows the consultative process as set out in relevant Staff Rules and procedures before issuing a revised version of the Circular. While the FAO has a duty to consult properly with the staff representative bodies in the event that it decides to issue a new Circular, it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to make the requested order.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; consultation; staff representative;
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The complaint is well founded. As recognized by the majority of the members of the Appeals Committee, the amendment to the proposed 55-month rule, that is, its immediate application rather than the originally proposed application, was “drastically different from the effects the originally proposed 55-month rule would have had”. Changing the proposal to provide for an immediate application resulted in a significant number of staff members holding a temporary appointment being affected. The majority of the members of the Appeals Committee observed that “[t]he measures taken by the Organization in the follow-up to the issuance of [the Circular], in particular the extensions of contracts until 31 July 2015 for those individuals who had already accumulated 55 months of aggregate service at the time of issuance of the [Circular], indicate[d] the type of effects and potential responses fully informed and open consultations on the amended 55-month rule could have anticipated”. The majority noted “that on 5 March 2015, the SMCC discussed the amended [...] 55-month rule. However, neither the [complainant] nor the Organization submit[ted] that these discussions were ‘consultations’, as required by Staff Rule 302.8.3”. The majority did not consider that the meeting of 5 March constituted a “proper and meaningful consultation”, and it noted also that the “UGSS, according to the SMCC summary record, had informed Management on 5 March 2015 that it ‘was not aware of how many temporary staff would be immediately affected by the new rule on the retroactive limitation of short-term employment to 55 months, and asked to receive the numbers of [the General Service staff] that would be touched and risk to be separated by the Organization’. This information, in the [majority’s] view, would indeed have been useful, in fact, it was crucial to assess the effects of the amended 55-month rule on existing short-term [...] staff [in the General Service category]. However the information was not made available.” The Tribunal finds these considerations to be correct.
The Tribunal finds that by informing the staff representative bodies, at the 5 March meeting, of the decision to proceed with the introduction of the new Policy through the publication of the Circular on 6 March, the Organization was essentially presenting them with a fait accompli. Contrary to the Director-General’s view that the consultation process preceding the issuance of the Circular was appropriate, the Tribunal finds that it was insufficient, as a proper consultation must allow a reasonable amount of time for the consulted body to discuss the issue, have its principal questions answered and provide reasoned advice or recommendations, and must also allow time for the deciding authority to take that advice into consideration prior to taking the decision. In Judgment 380, under 21, the Tribunal stated: “Where there is only a simple obligation to consult, the decision-maker’s duty is to listen or at most to exchange views. The object of the consultation is that [she or] he will make the best decision and the assumption is that [she or] he will not succeed in doing that unless [she or] he has the benefit of the views of the person consulted. The object of negotiation on the other hand is compromise. This object would be frustrated if either party began with the determination not to make any concession in any circumstances, just as the object of consultation would be frustrated if the decision-maker began with a determination not to be influenced by anything that might be said to [her or] him. On both these hypotheses there would be a lack of good faith.”
Keywords:
consultation; good faith; staff representative;
Judgment 4197
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for payment of overtime hours performed under the terms of an informal agreement concluded within his department.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that a practice was established based on the informal agreement, which was not contrary to the written provisions of Articles 57 and 58 of the Service Regulations. This practice, which was followed for a long time without any contestation by the parties to the agreement, became a legally binding practice, which only regarded voluntary work, thus, there was no requirement to consult the Local Advisory Committee (LAC) or the General Advisory Committee (GAC).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 57 and 58 of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
consultation; practice;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
Since a breach of rules concerning consultation of a staff representative body constitutes a procedural flaw, this plea lies within the scope of review defined above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 3883
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[T]he failure to consult as required by [the relevant rule] cannot be excused because such consultation had not occurred for some years without complaint.
Keywords:
consultation;
Judgment 3850
124th Session, 2017
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to amend his job title.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; consultation; decision quashed; title of post;
Judgment 3775
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the Office Procedure on “Rental and car advances for internationally-recruited officials”, on the grounds that the Staff Union was not consulted before it was issued.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; consultation; staff representative;
Judgment 3736
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the ITU’s decision to change its medical insurance scheme and to increase their premiums under this insurance scheme.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation; decision quashed; health insurance; insurance;
Consideration 13
Extract:
It follows from what was said under 7 [...] that Service Order No. 14/10 is unlawful because the Staff Council was not consulted. The decisions to deduct additional insurance premiums from the complainants’ pensions as from 1May 2014 must therefore be set aside and the organisation must be ordered to reimburse the complainants the amount thereof.
The complainants are also entitled to compensation for the moral injury caused by the unlawful nature of these undue deductions.
However, given that the unlawfulness of Service Order No. 14/10 is due only to a procedural flaw which, moreover, may be remedied, including retroactively, an award of 2,000 euros to each complainant will constitute sufficient compensation for this injury.
Keywords:
consultation; moral injury;
Judgment 3671
122nd Session, 2016
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two service orders.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls [...] that in keeping with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, when a text provides for the consultation of a body representing the staff before the adoption of a decision, the competent authority must follow that procedure, otherwise its decision will be unlawful (see, for example, Judgment 1488, under 10). It is ascertained that the ITU did not consult the Staff Council on the matter of the disputed service orders. The fact relied upon by the ITU, that two members of the Council took part in the above-mentioned working group, is not a valid substitute for the consultation of the Council.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1488
Keywords:
consultation;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
