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

Exception (113,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Exception
Total judgments found: 204

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • Judgment 4059


    127th Session, 2019
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to affiliate her to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant does not dispute the grounds on which the finding of irreceivability was made. However, she asks the Tribunal to consider her complaint as an “exceptional case”. The relevant case law of the Tribunal consistently states:
    “Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable ‘if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits’ [...].”
    (Judgment 3758, under 10; see also Judgment 3687, under 9, and the cases cited therein.)
    In Judgment 3758, under 11, the Tribunal added:
    “As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. ‘When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective.’ (See Judgment 3439, under 4.)”
    However, the case law also recognizes that there are exceptions to the requirement of the strict adherence to the applicable time limits. In Judgment 3687, under 10, the Tribunal stated:
    “[I]n very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
    (See also Judgment 3758, under 12.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140, 3405, 3439, 3687, 3758

    Keywords:

    delay; exception; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 3965


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO did not properly address or investigate his claim of harassment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The President’s decision, communicated by the letter of 13 October 2009, was based on the Ombudsman’s comments, which did not comply with Article 11 of Circular No. 286, and the decision itself did not correspond to what Article 12 of the Circular required. Most importantly, the decision of 13 October 2009 did not clearly reject the complainant’s harassment complaint or determine any other course of action on it. The complainant was therefore not only deprived of his right to have his complaint dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules, but was also misled as to the possibilities of challenging a decision. Accordingly, the decision of 13 October 2009 must be set aside. As this decision was ambiguous and misleading, the filing of the internal appeal on 19 April 2010 comes within the scope of the exceptions that the Tribunal has established for accepting a late internal appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1466, consideration 5, 2722, consideration 3, and 3406, consideration 13). To the extent that the IAC’s majority opinion and the impugned decision of the President were based on the argument that the appeal was irreceivable, they are tainted with an error of law and the impugned decision of 14 February 2012 will therefore be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406

    Keywords:

    exception; internal appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3947


    125th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Regarding Article VII, paragraph 1,[of the Tribunal's Statute] consistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations. The following was stated, for example, in Judgment 1653, consideration 6: “According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint ‘shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations’. So where the staff regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the regulations or implementing rules.”
    In the same vein, it was stated in Judgment 1469, consideration 16, that to satisfy the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, that internal means of redress must be exhausted, the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but she or he must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure.
    It has also been stated that a staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to lodging a complaint with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3458, consideration 7: “It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).”
    There are limited exceptions to the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1. The following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3714, consideration 12:
    “The Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute that internal remedies be exhausted will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgments 2912, consideration 6, 3397, consideration 1, and 3505, consideration 1). Moreover, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the above conditions are satisfied [...].”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1469, 1653, 3458, 3714

    Keywords:

    exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 3945


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s case law states that a complainant may make a claim for consequential relief which was not made in the internal proceedings. Under that case law, claims for moral damages can be treated as consequential relief and thus are not subject to the requirement to exhaust internal remedies (see Judgment 3871, consideration 18). Regarding the claim for costs, the Tribunal has accepted that only a claim for costs with respect to the proceedings before the Tribunal may be receivable (see Judgment 3421, under 2(a)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3421, 3871

    Keywords:

    costs; exception; internal remedies exhausted; moral damages;



  • Judgment 3903


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Considerations 6 and 17

    Extract:

    [I]n the circumstances as the complainant understood them to be, he did not request a review of the 16 June decision to terminate his appointment within the thirty-day time limit. Although the Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement of strict adherence to the time limits with respect to the filing of an internal appeal, there are exceptions to this requirement. In Judgment 3687, consideration 10, the Tribunal stated: “The case law also recognizes that in very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
    [...]
    The way in which the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment was, in the letter, merged with the decision to abolish his position, the misleading content of the letter coupled with the vague and confusing language of the notification of the termination of the appointment was a breach of the ICC’s duty to act in good faith. In these circumstances, an exception to the rule of the strict adherence to the time limit for bringing an internal appeal challenging the decision provided for in Staff Rule 111.1(b) was correctly made by the Appeals Board. It follows that the complaint is receivable before the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    exception; good faith; time limit;



  • Judgment 3892


    124th Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contends that no final decision has yet been taken on her internal appeal.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    According to firm precedent, a complaint filed directly with the Tribunal is irreceivable unless the complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 3558, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558

    Keywords:

    exception; failure to exhaust internal remedies; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3267


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugned the decision not to waive the time limit for lodging an internal appeal, claiming that his heavy workload constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the grant of a waiver.

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    "It was not in issue that under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3) the discretionary power to waive the time limits can be exercised in exceptional circumstances. That is what the rule said. In its reasons, the Board pointed to the need for certainty that is created by time limits but noted the discretion to waive them in exceptional circumstances. It did not consider there were such circumstances and that the complainant’s workload would not have prevented him from bringing his appeal in time, though it accepted that may have contributed to him overlooking the time limits.
    This reasoning is quite unexceptionable. The complainant argued the reasoning contained a “contradiction”. He pointed to the Board’s acknowledgement in its reasons that the complainant’s heavy workload may possibly have been a contributing factor in the complainant overlooking the deadline. However the substance of what the Board was saying was that it was not satisfied the circumstances were exceptional. It needed to be positively satisfied that they were before it could exercise the discretionary power to waive the time limits. There has been no miscarriage of the exercise of the discretionary power. The Board was not obliged, as the complainant submitted, to involve the Administration and it had power, under Staff Rule 11.1.1(e)(3)(b), to summarily dismiss the appeal as clearly irreceivable. It did so. The complaint to the Tribunal should be dismissed."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3)

    Keywords:

    discretion; exception; internal appeal; time limit; waiver of internal appeal procedure;



  • Judgment 3224


    115th Session, 2013
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • 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 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, and plainly there is nothing abnormal in stipulating that an extension of appointment beyond that age limit, which by definition constitutes an exceptional measure, can be granted only if it is in the interest of the service."

    Keywords:

    age limit; career; condition; exception; extension; organisation's interest; retirement; right;

    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 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; general principle; grounds; international civil servant; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 3196


    115th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the implicit rejection of her request for disclosure of a medical report.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Although the complaint must be dismissed, the Tribunal will not entertain the Organization’s counterclaim to sanction the complainant for abuse of process. Indeed, whilst her unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent manipulation and misrepresentation are inappropriate, they do not prove bad faith in and of themselves, and as such do not constitute an exceptional circumstance meriting the imposition of costs on the complainant (see Judgment 1962, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1962

    Keywords:

    condition; costs; counterclaim; exception; vexatious complaint;



  • 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 of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; application for execution; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; 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 3127


    113th Session, 2012
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Thus, except in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on that point Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3068, under 20)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3068

    Keywords:

    exception; internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3120


    113th Session, 2012
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 & 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; international civil servant; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3115


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; international civil servant; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 3102


    112th Session, 2012
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; international civil servant; misconduct; procedure; promotion; right;



  • Judgment 3083


    112th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "Where [...] a person relies on an exception to escape liability, it is for that person to establish that his actions fell within the exception."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; exception; liability;



  • Judgment 3080


    112th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; date; delay; exception; insurance benefit; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 3074


    112th Session, 2012
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15 & 16

    Extract:

    "[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
    [M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986

    Keywords:

    acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; contract; date; exception; international civil servant; limits; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;



  • 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 3020


    111th Session, 2011
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It does not lie within the Tribunal's competence, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to examine whether the practice followed by the Genevan tax authorities [...] was compatible with the provisions on the exemption enjoyed in principle by the complainant as a[n] official employed by an international organisation which has concluded a headquarters agreement with Switzerland [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; domestic law; exception; headquarters agreement; iloat statute; international civil servant; limits; organisation; status of complainant; tax; written rule;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top