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

Order (138, 139, 672, 825, 826,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Order
Total judgments found: 27

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4040


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organisation to promote a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 3370, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3370

    Keywords:

    order; promotion;



  • Judgment 4029


    126th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him the two-step within-grade increase which, he argues, WHO ought to have granted him at the time of his appointment under a fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request for an order requiring WHO to provide him with a Certificate of Service is beyond the Tribunal’s competence. However, it is noted that WHO has agreed to provide the complainant with a Certificate of Service upon request.

    Keywords:

    certificate of service; competence of tribunal; order;



  • Judgment 4024


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organization to reclassify a post (see, for example, Judgment 3834, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3834

    Keywords:

    order; post classification;



  • Judgment 3922


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.

    Consideration 26

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has no power to order the Global Fund, as the complainant requests, to renew her employment on a “long-term contract of continuing duration” to a post which fits her qualifications, background and experience. Neither does the Tribunal have power to award her material damages equivalent to the amount which she would have received in a higher position (see Judgment 3835, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3835

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; order;



  • Judgment 3835


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506

    Keywords:

    order;



  • Judgment 3834


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506

    Keywords:

    order;



  • Judgment 3506


    120th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of some of her requests for the defrayal of medical expenses.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant principally asks the Tribunal to order the Fund to instruct the insurance company to defray her hospital expenses for the disputed period. Such a claim is irreceivable, since it is firmly established by the case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue injunctions against organisations (see, for example, Judgments 2370, under 19, or 2541, under 13)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2541

    Keywords:

    order;



  • Judgment 3428


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    [T]he complainants requested subsidiarily that the Tribunal should order the EPO “correctly to interpret the capping in Art[icle] 10 [of the New Pension Scheme Regulations]” [...]. The Tribunal may not, however, issue such injunctions to an international organisation. Hence these claims are [...] irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 1456, under 31, 2244, under 12, or 2793, under 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456, 2244, 2793

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; order;



  • Judgment 3300


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint filed against the decision not to consider the complainant's disability as resulting from an occupational disease.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 89(3), 89(4) and 90(1) of the Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; medical opinion; order; pension; procedural flaw; service-incurred; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3145


    113th Session, 2012
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [I]t is necessary, prior to judgment, to order, at the Organization’s expense, a medical examination by a specialist appointed by the President of the Tribunal [...].

    A medical expert shall be appointed by order of the President of the Tribunal to determine whether the complainant’s symptoms resulted from ergonomically unsound working conditions, or whether they had a different origin.
    The expert shall examine the complainant, take into consideration all the evidence in the file submitted to the Tribunal and may ask the parties for any pertinent information, while respecting the adversarial principle. [...]

    Keywords:

    appointing medical specialist by the tribunal; order;



  • Judgment 3141


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 55

    Extract:

    [P]rovided that the complainant regularises his stay in Switzerland beforehand by one of the procedures referred to above, there are grounds for ordering the Organization to request that he be issued a legitimation card according to the normal procedure. Contrary to WHO’s submissions, it does lie within the Tribunal’s powers to demand that it take such action, since under Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal, when the latter finds that an international organisation has not fulfilled one of its obligations, it may order any requisite measure to ensure the performance of that obligation (see Judgment 2720, under 17).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2720

    Keywords:

    order;



  • Judgment 3038


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

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "As the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a negotiated settlement, remitting the matter to [the Organization] to resolve the matter of compensation would be futile and would result in further unwarranted delay in the resolution of the dispute. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will itself determine the relief to which the complainant is entitled [...]."

    Keywords:

    compensation; delay; order; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3020


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

    Consideration 8

    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.
    "[T]here is no need to entertain the claim that the WTO should be ordered to 'employ its authority and power' to persuade the competent Swiss authorities to abandon the practice giving rise to this dispute, since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue such an order."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; domestic law; marital status; order; ratione materiae; tax;



  • Judgment 2880


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Application for execution of Judgment 2706 - In Judgment 2706 the Tribunal ordered the Organization inter alia to review the classification of the complainant's post and, if appropriate, to promote her. As a result of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years, the complainant was not promoted. The Tribunal granted the application for execution and ordered that the application for promotion be properly considered.
    "The Tribunal [...] wishes to clarify [...] the meaning of the phrase "le cas échéant" in the authoritative French text of its orders in Judgment 2706. Having regard to the context in which it is used and the instructions given by the Tribunal in Judgment 2706, under 15, it is clear that the order means that "if the required conditions are met" or "in such a case" the complainant is to be promoted. That is, the Director General is to base his decision on relevant materials, namely the proposals of the Classification Committee and the Promotion Advisory Board."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706

    Keywords:

    application for execution; order; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 2819


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "As the transfer decision did not respect the complainant's dignity, the Tribunal will order that the complainant be reassigned, within 28 days, to a post that satisfies the core requirement of a grade A6 post, namely, the running of a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields, and that the decision of 22 December 2005 be quashed with effect from the date of his reassignment to the new post."

    Keywords:

    compensatory measure; grade; order; post; respect for dignity; terms of appointment; transfer; working conditions;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720

    Keywords:

    apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2724


    105th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal's power to order the filing of further submissions may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings."

    Keywords:

    further submissions; order; procedure;



  • Judgment 2510


    100th Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant's case."

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; evidence; further submissions; order; procedure; request by a party; submissions;



  • Judgment 2458


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 7

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
    The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189

    Keywords:

    application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 1883


    87th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    "The complainant contests [the non-renewal of his contract] by a motion for an interlocutory order, [he] seeks preliminary injunctive relief to force the organization to place him on unpaid leave of absence and to offer him contract work as available. [T]o allow the motion would of necessity decide the principal issue in the complaint which is before the Tribunal on the merits. The requested injunction would have the effect of altering the status quo. The reply raises serious issues which should only be determined on the merits." The Tribunal adds that "the allegation of irreparable harm is unconvincing" [and that] "the balance of hardships favours the organization."

    Keywords:

    compensation; contract; interlocutory order; non-renewal of contract; order;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top