ORGANISATION'S DUTIES
You searched for:
Keywords: ORGANISATION'S DUTIES
Total judgments found: 680
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 | next >
Judgment 3191
114th session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Regarding the contents of the vacancy notice, the confusion, to the extent there was some confusion among potential applicants, involved confusion about the interpretation of the Service Regulations and not the interpretation of the content of the vacancy notice itself. However, in these circumstances, where the EPO was aware of the confusion surrounding the interpretation of its Regulations, it was incumbent on the Administration to clarify the requirements for the position in the vacancy notice."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; formal requirements; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 3189
114th session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The] duty of care [...] does not in any way imply a duty always to interpret texts in the staff’s favour."
Keywords:
duty of care; interpretation; judicial review; organisation's duties; written rule;
Judgment 3188
114th session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly observed, internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see for example Judgment 2522, under 7). While the time an appeal might reasonably take will often depend on the particular circumstances of a given case, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902, under 16, that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; refusal; request; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3185
114th session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
"The rule that administrative acts cannot apply retroactively [...] prevents an international organisation from altering definitively established legal situations, for example by calling into question an appraisal of service rendered during an evaluation period prior to the adoption of the new rules, as occurred in the instant case."
Keywords:
amendment; complaint allowed in part; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; period; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3184
114th session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainant objected, in his memorandum to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee, that three members of the Committee had already considered the same facts in a previous appeal. [...] The Tribunal considers that the specific rule relating to disqualification of members of the Appeals Committee stated in Manual paragraph 331.2.31 is not a complete and exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which a member is disqualified from hearing an appeal. The fundamental function of the internal appeal procedure, which is “an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony” (see Judgment 1317, under 31), requires that “the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations” (see Judgment 2671, under 11). If a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new Appeals Committee to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Manual paragraph 331.2.31
ILOAT Judgment(s): 267, 1317
Keywords:
bias; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; safeguard;
Judgment 3180
114th session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the amount of money claimed may be derisory does not prevent the claim from being receivable. [I]f the [Organisation] was of the opinion that the amount at stake in this dispute was derisory, it ought to have tried to put an end to it by reaching an amicable settlement."
Keywords:
amount; claim; complaint allowed; organisation's duties; receivability; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3172
114th session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3168
114th session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is firm Tribunal case law that a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgments 2904, under 14 and 15, 2851, under 10, and 2116, under 11). It can be seen from the above summary of the internal appeal process that there were a number of requests for extensions of time by both parties and in some instances consented to by the opposing party. While the departure of a staff member responsible for an appeal is beyond the control of the Administration, the latter does bear the responsibility of providing adequate staffing in keeping with its obligation to provide an efficient means of internal redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2851, 2904
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; decision; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 3166
114th session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; damages; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; moral injury; non-renewal; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3164
114th session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation must interpret a staff member’s claims in good faith and read them as it might reasonably have been expected to do (see, in particular, Judgment 1768, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768
Keywords:
claim; complaint allowed in part; good faith; interpretation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3162
114th session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; right to reply; written rule;
Judgment 3160
114th session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 15
Extract:
"This Tribunal has recognised staff members’ right to privacy. An example is found in Judgment 2271. [...]
[T]he issue is whether there was a breach of privacy or confidentiality as a result of the disclosure to the Director of PSM/HRM of the fact that the complainant had made an Appendix D claim. The answer is readily found in Judgment 3004 at consideration 6. [...] The disclosure of the mere fact that the claim had been made involved a breach of confidentiality. Being in a similar situation, the complainant should be awarded 4,000 euros as moral damages for breach of confidentiality."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 3004
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; damages; lack of consent; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3159
114th session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9, 19 and 20
Extract:
"The terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 are clear. They impose a duty on the Organization in specified circumstances. The duty is to use reasonable efforts to reassign a staff member whose post is being abolished. The specified circumstances are, as to a staff member on a fixed-term appointment, that the staff member has served “for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more”. The expression “continuous and uninterrupted” fairly emphatically focuses attention on service of a particular character. There is no basis in the language of the Staff Rule to treat its operation as ambulatory in the sense that a person who has been on a fixed-term appointment but has not served in that capacity for a continuous and uninterrupted period of at least five years is nonetheless a person to whom the Organization, by operation of the Rule, is under a duty to make reasonable efforts to reassign. [...] However, a staff rule cast in terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 does not preclude the possibility that the Organization is under a duty requiring proactive conduct in circumstances not comprehended by the Rule itself. WHO does not put in issue that there is a general duty of loyalty, as the complainant contends. What might be required of an organisation in broadly similar circumstances was considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902. [...] The same reasoning can be applied in the present case. The complainant and WHO found it mutually acceptable, and with benefits accruing to both, for the complainant to be employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment. But the complainant nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization. In those circumstances, WHO was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1050.2
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
Keywords:
abolition of post; contract; duration of appointment; enforcement; fixed-term; general principle; intention of parties; non-renewal; organisation's duties; reassignment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
Judgment 3158
114th session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."
Keywords:
advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 3157
114th session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
"[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; complaint allowed; consequence; criteria; decision quashed; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; rejected permanently;
Judgment 3153
114th session, 2013
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As the complainant was not reinstated, her employment relationship with WMO ended on 3 November 2006 and with her separation from service, her right to participate in the UNJSPF ended (see Judgments 1338, 1797 and 1904). Further, as also stated in Judgment 2621 under 5, 'had it been its intent the Tribunal would have specifically ordered the payment of an amount equivalent to the pension fund contributions that would otherwise have been paid by the [organisation]'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1338, 1797, 1904, 2621, 3061
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; case law; contributions; judgment; organisation's duties; pension; reinstatement; unjspf;
Judgment 3152
114th session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment; no provision; organisation's duties; request; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Tribunal, which has the power to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that its judgments are executed, may, if it considers it appropriate, order the payment of a penalty for default (see, for example, Judgments 1620, under 10, or 2806, under 11). In the present case, the patent lack of goodwill demonstrated by [the organisation] to date with regard to honouring its obligation to pay the awards made against it justifies the imposition of a penalty, as requested by the complainant, of 25,000 euros for each month's delay in the settlement of the awards made in this judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 2806
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; continuing breach; delay; execution; formal demand for payment; iloat; judgment; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3148
113th session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]he lack or inadequacy of an explanation can be remedied at the appeal stage provided that the appeal body may examine the complete file and that the staff member is given his or her full say (see, in particular, Judgment 2668, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2668
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; right to reply;
Judgment 3141
113th session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 36
Extract:
"[W]hen recruiting its officials an international organisation must ensure that their status complies with the laws of the host State governing the residence of aliens, failing which it may be held to have abused the privileges and immunities conferred upon it and upon its staff members."
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; domestic law; headquarters; member state; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities;
Judgment 3127
113th session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal requirements; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 | next >
|
