ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 120th Session

Judgment No. 3557

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

summary procedure

Consideration 3

Extract:

"It is obvious that the complainant does not have standing to submit such a claim. He does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. While in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, in so doing they must allege a breach of their own individual rights, which might include, for example, the right to be consulted (see, for example, Judgments 2236, under 4, and 3449, under 4) or the right to compete for the post (see, for example, Judgment 2755, under 6). In the present case, the complainant does not clearly articulate any violation of his rights as a member of the selection board."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2236, 2755, 3449

Keywords

locus standi; selection board; staff representative

Consideration 4

Extract:

"[T]o the extent that the complainant appears to be seeking to defend the general interest of the staff in having that particular vacancy filled by a lawful procedure, not only does he not have standing to do so either individually or as a member of a group, he also has a conflict of interest. Indeed, given that he participated in the selection process, he could not have been – even theoretically – a candidate for that vacancy. His claim is therefore clearly irreceivable as he lacks locus standi to bring it."

Keywords

locus standi; selection procedure

Consideration 5

Extract:

"A significant part of the complainant’s submissions is devoted to challenging certain modifications to the EPO’s internal appeal procedure which were introduced in 2013. In his claims for relief, he specifically asks the Tribunal to “clarify some points of the procedure of the Internal Appeals Committee”. The complainant clearly misunderstands the role of the Tribunal. A request for interpretation of a normative text of an organization cannot be formulated as an independent claim before the Tribunal, outside the context of alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official. This claim is therefore clearly irreceivable."

Keywords

receivability of the complaint; competence of tribunal; interpretation; ratione materiae



 
Last updated: 15.08.2017 ^ top