Request by a party (633, 795, 796,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Request by a party
Total judgments found: 161
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
"Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
Keywords:
acceptance; age limit; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; request by a party; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2986, 3034
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; request by a party;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
"In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."
Keywords:
age limit; composition of the internal appeals body; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that a failure to respond to a legitimate request of a staff member within a reasonable time may be deemed to be a refusal of the request if the staff member elects to accept that refusal. Additionally, egregious delay in responding to a reasonable request may involve a breach of the obligation to deal with the staff member in good faith. In the present case, the failure of the IAEA to provide the complainant with an updated job description over several years involved a violation of her rights for which she is entitled to compensation."
Keywords:
compensation; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"[T]he rule laid down in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal that internal means of redress must first be exhausted does not apply to a claim for compensation for moral injury, which constitutes a claim for consequential relief which the Tribunal has the power to grant in all circumstances (see Judgment 2609, under 10, or Judgment 2779, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2609, 2779
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, when an organisation is ordered to grant a financial benefit to a staff member who fulfilled the legal requirements for claiming it, but who failed to do so as soon as his/her entitlement arose, the benefit in question is due only as from the date of the initial claim by the person concerned, and not the date on which he/she became entitled to the benefit ([...] see Judgment 2550, under 6, or Judgment 2860, under 22). There would be no justification for ordering an organisation unexpectedly to pay potentially large, backdated, aggregated sums for benefits which had not been claimed by the staff member concerned when he or she should have done so. [...] [Moreover] it is true that the position would be different if the Organization itself were responsible for the fact that the [staff member] did not submit a claim [at that time]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2550, 2860
Keywords:
amount; condition; date; delay; exception; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; medical expenses; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
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 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; exception; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; official; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard;
Judgment 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"The complainant has requested that the order to Eurocontrol to recalculate the pensionable years credited to him be accompanied by a penalty for default. In the absence of any grounds for doubting that the Agency will execute this judgment in good faith and with diligence, as is its duty since it has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction, there is no reason to order such a penalty."
Keywords:
claim; consequence; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2459, under 9, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; provision; request by a party;
Judgment 2965
110th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Organization requests the joinder of the two complaints filed by the complainant.
"The Tribunal finds that, although they are contained in a single decision, the measures challenged by the complainant are different in nature. The request for joinder will therefore not be granted."
Keywords:
joinder; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
"The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849
Keywords:
case law; cause; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; liability; mistake of fact; official; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;
Judgment 2893
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
"This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
Keywords:
breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."
Keywords:
administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal points out that post classification cannot be confused with performance review. It is uncontested that the complainant's performance was considered highly by her supervisors but that does not have any relevance to the assessment of her post for the purposes of grade classification."
Keywords:
grade; performance report; post classification; request by a party;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 2821
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 to 10
Extract:
The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
"The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.
Keywords:
contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2792
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Having launched an internal appeal, a staff member is entitled to know whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed. The fact that certain aspects of the relief sought may have become moot does not absolve the head of an organisation from making a determination on the merits of the appeal."
Keywords:
compensation; executive head; internal appeal; no cause of action; official; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The charge against the complainant was 'fraud'. As the charge was denied, it was for the Organization to establish that the complainant had knowingly made a false claim."
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; organisation's duties; request by a party;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
