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

Execution of judgment (134, 745,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Execution of judgment
Total judgments found: 65

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4093


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes, as an exception to the principle recalled in consideration 3 [...], that in some cases an international organization may refrain from executing a judgment as ruled if execution proves impossible owing to subsequent facts or to pre-existing facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it ruled on the case (see, inter alia, Judgments 3261, consideration 16, and 3824, consideration 4)[.]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3261, 3824

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]f the Organization considered that it was impossible to execute Judgment 3689 in accordance with its terms, it should have filed an application for review with the Tribunal (see Judgments 3635, consideration 8, or 3825, consideration 8). However, it did not lodge such an application in this case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3635, 3689, 3825

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    WHO is required to pay the complainant interest on arrears as ordered by the Tribunal in Judgment 3689. It should be recalled in this regard that such interest simply represents an objective form of compensation for the time that has elapsed since the date on which the principal amount was due, and that the mere fact that there was a delay in the payment of that amount is sufficient to justify payment of interest, whether or not the debtor was at fault (see, for example, Judgment 1403, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1403, 3689

    Keywords:

    delay in payment; execution of judgment; interest on arrears; interest on damages;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]t is not open to the Tribunal, when examining an application for execution, to modify the content of the provisions of the judgment in respect of which the application is made and it cannot therefore, in any event, determine the amount of compensation for late payment of the sums due to the complainant in a manner different to that provided for in Judgment 3689.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3689

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 4092


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]t must be emphasized that WHO does not really have such freedom [to reinstate the complainant] since point 2 of the decision in Judgment 3871 requires it to reinstate the complainant “as far as possible”.

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; reinstatement;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620

    Keywords:

    application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The delay in fully executing Judgment 3930 has caused the complainant moral injury. In awarding moral damages, the Tribunal takes into particular account the following: the duration of the delay, the fact that there was no need to seek a decision from the Council of Administration to authorize the execution of a judgment of the Tribunal, particularly when the budget was already approved for payments of awards, and the misleading presentation made by the International Bureau (in the presentation to the Council of Administration debating whether or not to execute the judgment) that the complainant’s illness was feigned. The International Bureau acted without presenting any evidence from a medical board and without having completed a disciplinary proceeding with regard to that unproven allegation, in violation of its duty of care and in breach of the adversarial principle. The UPU must respect the dignity of its staff members and preserve their reputation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3930

    Keywords:

    delay in payment; duty of care; execution of judgment; moral damages; moral injury; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620

    Keywords:

    application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The delay in fully executing Judgment 3929 has caused the complainant moral injury. In awarding moral damages, the Tribunal takes into particular account the following: the duration of the delay and the fact that there was no need to seek a decision from the Council of Administration to authorize the execution of a judgment of the Tribunal, particularly when the budget was already approved for payments of awards.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3929

    Keywords:

    delay in payment; execution of judgment; moral damages; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4076


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [T]he order contained in the decision of Judgment 3927 was clear and the application for review did not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7). The execution depended on the payment of an established amount of money and the UPU had to execute the judgment within one month from the date of its delivery (see Judgment 3152, consideration 20).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 3152, 3927

    Keywords:

    application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The unnecessary delay in executing Judgment 3927 has caused the complainant moral injury, for which she is entitled to moral damages that the Tribunal sets in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927

    Keywords:

    delay in payment; execution of judgment; moral damages; moral injury;



  • Judgment 3989


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The EPO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3972.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Both the EPO and the complainant must approach the implementation of the orders in a rational, sensible and balanced way and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see, for example, Judgment 3823, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3823

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3986


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3887.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see Judgment 3823, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3823

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; good faith;



  • Judgment 3895


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3694.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    With regard to the clarification requested under a) [...], the expression an “Appeals Committee, composed in accordance with the applicable rules”, in the present case refers to the procedural rules in force at the time of the execution of the judgment (i.e. the new examination of the appeal). It must be accepted that the procedural rules governing the composition of the Appeals Committee could be changed and that, in the event of a change, the new provisions should apply to the complainant’s appeal. In saying this the Tribunal is not expressing a view about the lawfulness of the new provisions. As the application for execution is only based on the arguments raised with respect to the application for interpretation, it is without merit.

    Keywords:

    applicable law; execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3826


    124th Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3593.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see Judgment 3332, consideration 4). As a corollary of the res judicata authority, the Tribunal’s judgments are immediately operative, and, for this reason, an international organization is bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see Judgment 3152, consideration 11). As to the time within which a judgment is to be executed, the following was stated in Judgment 1812, consideration 4 [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1812, 3152, 3332

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3825


    124th Session, 2017
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3565.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Pursuant to Article VI of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal is competent to review its decisions. Such review, however, may only take place in exceptional circumstances. One of the exceptional circumstances articulated in the case law is where there has been a failure to take into account particular facts that would have led to a different result. In relation to the execution of a judgment, this has been further refined to limit review to those cases where the Tribunal was unaware of the fact or facts that make execution of the decision impossible. If the execution of an order is impossible for this reason, it is incumbent on the party whose duty it is to execute the order to bring an application for review to resolve the matter.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal specifically ordered that the written confirmation regarding the removal and destruction of materials was to be signed by the Executive Secretary personally, the signing of the confirmation could not lawfully be delegated to another person. The Commission’s submission that the Executive Secretary’s signature could be dispensed with overlooks the clear language of the order that it was obliged to execute.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3824


    124th Session, 2017
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3421.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    At the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal and according to its case law, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see Judgment 1887, under 8). However, an exception must be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment (see Judgments 2889, under 6 and 7, 3261, under 16, and 3332, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887, 2889, 3261, 3332

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    [The Organisation] executed Judgment 3421 as far as possible having regard to the change in circumstances since the end of the disputed competition. It did not act unlawfully by stating that it was impossible for it to re-open the competition, because this was prevented by a restructuring, the need for which cannot be contested. Nor did it act unlawfully by failing to provide additional information to the complainant, beyond that which it had provided at his request in the letter dated 1 November 2013.
    Nevertheless, the defendant’s failure to inform the Tribunal of a change in circumstances that would have rendered moot the complaint leading to Judgment 3421 led to the adoption of that same judgment, the execution of which is partly impossible. The complainant is thus entitled to moral damages, though it must also be taken into account that he too could have informed the Tribunal of the change in circumstances.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3421

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; execution of judgment; moral damages;



  • Judgment 3823


    124th Session, 2017
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3225.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Under Article VI, paragraph 1, second and third sentences, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal, but it may consider applications for interpretation, execution or review of those judgments. As the case law has consistently stated (since Judgment 82, under 6), the Tribunal’s judgments are therefore immediately operative, a principle also stemming from their res judicata authority. International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action is required by a judgment, which must be executed as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, 3003, under 12, 3152, under 11, and 3394, under 9). Furthermore, the parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments. Execution must occur within a reasonable period of time, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, especially the nature and the extent of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, for example, Judgments 2684, under 6, 3066, under 6, and 3656, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 1887, 2684, 3003, 3066, 3152, 3394, 3656

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; good faith; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3822


    124th Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3507.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Although the complainant believed that she should file an application for interpretation to this end, the Tribunal observes that the application can also be regarded, to a large extent, as an application for execution. Indeed, it is clear that in the complainant’s mind, the main purpose of the application, apart from obtaining an interpretation of the judgment, is to secure full execution of the judgment, as witness her claims for payment of the balance of the award against the Global Fund that she considers due and for interest thereon.

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; interpretation;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, under 6, and 3635, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3821


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3491.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The [organisation] submits that as Judgment 3491 has been fully executed and the present application exceeds the scope of an application for interpretation and execution, it is irreceivable. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3723, under 2, “[a]n application for execution of a judgment is, by definition, premised on the contention that the judgment in question has not been properly executed. Determining whether or not that contention is correct plainly involves an examination of the merits of the application. Hence the receivability of an application for execution cannot be challenged by the defendant organisation on that basis.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3491, 3723

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3820


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3490.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The [Organisation] submits that as Judgment 3490 has been fully executed and the present application exceeds the scope of an application for interpretation and execution, it is irreceivable. This argument is rejected. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3723, under 2, “[a]n application for execution of a judgment is, by definition, premised on the contention that the judgment in question has not been properly executed. Determining whether or not that contention is correct plainly involves an examination of the merits of the application. Hence the receivability of an application for execution cannot be challenged by the defendant organisation on that basis.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3490, 3723

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3792


    123rd Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3045.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]s of the date on which the present judgment is adopted, in other words more than five years after the delivery in public of Judgment 3045, the latter is still being executed. The Organisation has therefore seriously breached its duty to execute the judgment within a reasonable period of time. It must ensure that the procedure is now completed as soon as possible.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3045

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he delay in executing Judgment 3045 has caused the complainant moral injury, which may be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 20,000 euros.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3045

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; moral damages;



  • Judgment 3724


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed applications for execution of Judgments 2551 and 3637.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Given that the execution of points 2 and 3 of the decision in Judgment 3637 entailed the payment of clearly determined sums, and as the complainant did not mention any payment in her brief, the President of the Tribunal decided, as an exceptional measure, to ask the ITU what steps it had taken to execute Judgment 3637. The ITU has furnished written evidence that on 14 July 2016, i.e. eight days after the public delivery of the aforementioned judgment, it paid the complainant the full amount of the moral damages and costs as ordered by the Tribunal. The ITU has also supplied evidence that the complainant was informed of this. It is verging on bad faith that she failed to mention those payments in her applications.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3637

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3656


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3230.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s judgments carry the authority of res judicata and must be executed as ruled. The parties must work together in good faith to this end. Judgments must be executed within a reasonable period of time. In order to ascertain whether this is the case, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account, especially the nature and the scope of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, in particular, Judgments 2684, under 4 and 6, and 3066, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3066

    Keywords:

    application for execution; execution of judgment;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    While there is no evidence in the file to show that Eurocontrol informed the complainant of all the steps it was taking to execute the judgment, this does not signify that it thus acted in breach of the principle of good faith. On the contrary, it must be found that there was nothing to prevent the complainant from inquiring as to what progress had been made with these deliberations before complaining to the Tribunal of an alleged failure to act on the part of the Organisation.

    Keywords:

    application for execution; execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3566


    121st Session, 2016
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3239.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "Contrary to what the complainant states incorrectly in her submissions,[...] the Tribunal did not award her an amount equivalent to “five years of her last salary”, but rather the salary “which she would have received if the execution of her contract had continued […] for five years [...].” The CDE therefore had to reconstruct the salary that the complainant would have received had she actually continued her employment during that period, subject to the sole condition that, as the consideration stipulates, this reconstruction should be performed “at the same level of emoluments”, i.e. disregarding any salary increases – resulting, for example, from a promotion – which the complainant might have received during that period.
    However, the allowances and other financial benefits linked to the complainant’s family situation, which formed one element of her salary, were naturally subject under the applicable internal rules to conditions relating to, inter alia, the age and educational arrangements of her dependent children which, by definition, might have been fulfilled for only part of the five years in question."

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; material injury;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant, who has a duty to cooperate in good faith in the execution of the judgment in question, could not, as she did, refuse to provide the CDE with the information and supporting documents that she was asked to produce (see Judgment 2684, under 6).
    If she wished to challenge the validity of this request, she had only to lodge an application for interpretation of [the] Judgment [...] with the Tribunal, which she did not do either."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; execution of judgment; good faith;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "[C]ontrary to what the CDE appears to believe, it cannot legitimately cite the need to submit its every expense to its Executive Board for approval to exonerate it from its duty to execute the judgment in question promptly.
    International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require and, in particular, should the Tribunal order payment of a sum of money, to effect this payment without delay (see, inter alia, Judgment 82, under 5, and aforementioned Judgment 3152, under 11). It would be a serious breach of the CDE’s obligations if the execution of such an order were rendered contingent on the Executive Board’s approval, with the inevitable corollary that, should the Board refuse, the CDE would consider itself released from the obligation under which it is placed, or if the execution of the order were simply delayed pending a meeting of the Board, even if the Board’s approval were merely a formality."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 3152

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal recalls that its judgments, which, according to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which also have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled. They may form the subject of an application for interpretation by the Tribunal only if a party considers that the decision is deficient or insufficiently clear (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, and 3394, under 9)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887, 3003, 3152, 3394

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3394


    119th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal considered that, by taking it upon itself to interpret Judgment 3119, WIPO breached its duty to execute that judgment fully and correctly.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3119

    Keywords:

    application for execution; execution of judgment; organisation's duties; res judicata;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top