Enforcement (236,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Enforcement
Total judgments found: 208
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 2358
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal asserts categorically that, as a matter of law, the ambiguities must be resolved in the manner most favourable to staff members. That is simply an application of the general rule requiring that any ambiguous text should be construed against the interest of the person responsible for drafting it and in favour of the person upon whom it is imposed. (For a recent application of the rule, see Judgment 2290.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2290
Keywords:
enforcement; general principle; interpretation; organisation's interest; staff member's interest; written rule;
Judgment 2357
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It was said in Judgments 1835, 1836 and 1837 that the application of Article 71(2)[regarding the conditions of award of an education allowance] 'is at the discretion of the President of the Office'. It is not strictly accurate to describe a decision as to the application of Article 71(2) as discretionary. The question whether a particular school or university corresponds to a 'child's educational stage' is essentially a question of fact, albeit one that may, in some circumstances, permit of a value judgment. However, because of the nature of that question, a decision under Article 71(2) is subject to limited review on the same grounds as a discretionary decision properly so called. Thus, it will be reviewed only for procedural error, mistake of fact or law, the drawing of a clearly mistaken conclusion or misuse of authority. In particular, this Tribunal will not substitute its view of the facts for that reached by the President."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 71(2) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1835, 1836, 1837
Keywords:
abuse of power; allowance; case law; condition; decision; discretion; education expenses; enforcement; executive head; grounds; interpretation; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Much of the complainant's argument is directed to the proposition that the Commission cannot secure services of the standard specified in [Staff] Regulation 4.2 if it cannot retain those services beyond seven years, particularly as it has to compete for staff with other international organisations. That proposition is not self-evidently correct. Nor is it established by pointing, as the complainant does in his submissions, to international organisations which have a similar policy and which, according to the complainant, have or may have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitable staff. Moreover, [...] exceptions [are allowed] in the case of a need to retain 'essential expertise or memory in the Secretariat' ensures that, to that extent, its staffing needs can be satisfied."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CTBTO PrepCom's Staff Regulation 4.2
Keywords:
appointment; career; contract; enforcement; exception; general principle; lack of evidence; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; qualifications; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Although the embodiment of the seven year policy in [the] directive may properly be viewed as the prescribing of a term or condition upon which fixed-term contracts may be granted, it does not itself operate as the imposition of that term or condition. To be effective, a term or condition of the kind now in question must be incorporated in the contract, even if only by reference: a reference to the Staff Regulations and Rules is not sufficient because they do not incorporate the [...] directive in question. By implementing the seven year policy in the way that he purported to do in the present case, the Executive Secretary was attempting to enforce a term or condition that was not incorporated in the contract between the complainant and the Preparatory Commission."
Keywords:
appointment; career; complainant; condition; contract; effect; enforcement; exception; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Judgment 2296
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"There can be no doubt of the right of an international organisation to set obligatory rules for the conduct of its staff governing various aspects of their relations with their employer, and that this right includes the right to set reasonable limitation periods during which claims against the employer must be asserted. However, such rules must be published or otherwise made known to all the members of staff concerned in a way which can leave absolutely no doubt as to the nature and reach of the rule, and no doubt that it has been brought to the attention of all those to whom it applies. Even if the [Organization] had succeeded in showing that the tax reimbursement instructions had been given to the staff individually, which it has signally failed to do, it would also have to have shown that all others in like case had been similarly advised. Rules limiting the right to exercise a fundamental condition of employment applicable to all international civil servants are only permissible if they, too, are applicable to all."
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review; limits; official; organisation's duties; payment; provision; publication; purport; reasonable time; refund; right; tax; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 2272
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
A rule, "approved by the Administrative Council, [cannot] be called into question by the President. It is true that, when deciding to promote or not to promote a permanent employee, the President enjoys discretionary authority, subject to the Tribunal¿s limited power of review. Within the bounds of this limited power of review, however, the Tribunal considers whether decisions referred to it are not flawed by abuse of authority or error of law. In the present case, the complainant argues rightly that by refusing to apply to his case a rule which had been approved by the Administrative Council, despite the fact that he met the necessary requirements, the President committed an error of law and abused his authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; condition; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; interpretation; judicial review; limits; misuse of authority; promotion; refusal; repeal; written rule;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2185
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal gave the organisation the choice between reinstating the complainant or paying her a compensation. "The organization clearly chose not to reinstate the complainant. Consequently, the complainant's claim for reinstatement is irreceivable. It should also be noted that since [the organization] applied the second option of [that] judgment [...] to the complainant, she cannot seek to benefit from the first option as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1553
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; claim; decision; enforcement; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reinstatement;
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"An international organisation has a duty to comply with its own internal rules and to conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that these will be followed."
Keywords:
enforcement; official; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2151
93rd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In the Tribunal's view, the fact that [...] two staff members [...] filed no internal appeal does not prevent them from applying to intervene (see Judgment 518). The only issue to be resolved is whether the organisation's decisions on post classification apply to them. [...] This judgment should be extended to them only insofar as they have an interest, on account of their de jure and de facto position regarding post classification, in benefiting from the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 518
Keywords:
cause of action; enforcement; internal remedies exhausted; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2122
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submitted her candidacy for a post of legal assistant. Her application was not taken into consideration because she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions set out in the notice of competition. She submits that there is a contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2 which sets out conditions for eligibility. The Tribunal finds "no contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2. [...] Contrary to what the complainant appears to suggest, the fact that Article 30(1) of the Staff Regulations says that the 'selection of candidates shall be based on qualifications' does not preclude the setting of eligibility conditions. [...] The eligibility conditions provided for in Rule No. 2 offend against no provision of the Staff Regulations. [...] The complainant did not meet all the conditions set in the notice of competition, and the Agency was therefore right to reject her application."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; complainant; condition; criteria; degree; difference; enforcement; grounds; post; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant assumes that the provisions of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat, being subordinate legislation, are incompatible with the corresponding provisions of the primary legislation, namely the Staff Rules. The Tribunal considers that the notice "does not merely implement or clarify the Staff Rule; it purports to extend its reach substantially. It cannot stand."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; condition; definition; difference; enforcement; limits; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purport; purpose; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2098
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant denies having signed an agreement for the termination of his appointment. He asked for a signed copy of the agreement but the organization cannot provide it. "The facts show beyond all doubt that the complainant accepted the [organization]'s offer. His attitude [is] tantamount to an admission that he did agree to the termination of his appointment. This is further borne out by the fact that he raised no objection when the agreement was implemented. The concurrence and reciprocity between the parties would in itself constitute sufficient evidence that a contract existed even in the absence of proof of a written agreement."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; complainant; contract; enforcement; evidence; intention of parties; lack of evidence; offer; request by a party;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Most contracts are entered into because both parties think it is to their economic advantage to do so. Where there is great disparity in bargaining power [...] the law will impose constraints upon the more powerful. In the international civil service that is one of the functions of the staff rules, and where these are inadequate, the Tribunal will intervene to redress the balance through the application of general principles of international civil service law."
Keywords:
contract; difference; enforcement; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; right; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Because of serious financial difficulties the organisation had to employ the complainants simultaneously under a fixed- term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. After being restored to their full-time fixed-term status they complained about the rates of remuneration received by them under their short-term contracts. "The principle which guarantees equal remuneration for work of equal value [...] is designed to prevent discrimination by employers between employees and to ensure that persons performing different work of the same or similar value shall receive equal remuneration. The organization is right to submit that its most common application is to the classification or grading of jobs [...]. That principle was never intended to apply so as to give rise to a claim by an individual to be paid at the same rate for all work which he or she performs: differential rates for work performed under different conditions, such as overtime to take a common example, are not discriminatory. In the present case there is nothing improper in the who's paying lower rates to persons such as the complainants doing temporary work on a short-term basis."
Keywords:
amount; budgetary reasons; condition; contract; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; fixed-term; general principle; official; organisation; overtime; part-time employment; post classification; safeguard; salary; scale; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2088
92nd Session, 2002
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
The complainant seeks "a termination indemnity under Rule 109.5 which does not deal with indemnities. These are in fact dealt with under 109.7 [...] the question of a termination indemnity was not argued before the Tribunal probably because the complainant did not cite the number of the Staff Rule correctly. The Tribunal considers that the question of a claim under 109.7 (mistakenly referred to as 109.5) should be returned to the parties for argument on this single issue".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 109.5 UNESCO STAFF RULE 109.7
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complainant; enforcement; iloat; provision; remand; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 2086
92nd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In order to be awarded a personal promotion the complainant must have completed 18 years of continuous service under a fixed-term or permanent contract. "The [organisation] is arguing that [...] in determining whether the complainant fulfilled [such a] requirement [...] reference must be made to clauses of the contracts which came into force unopposed, [including] short-term contracts [...] The approach is too rigid [...] The issue was [not] one of applying or interpreting the complainant's early appointments [...] It is a matter of applying a rule which is currently in force and which concerns the legal nature of former contractual relationships between the parties. In other words, in the light of the current rule, what type of appointment did the early contracts establish? It should be noted that the name they were given will not necessarily express the actual relationship".
Keywords:
applicable law; condition; contract; criteria; definition; effective date; enforcement; fixed-term; interpretation; permanent appointment; personal promotion; provision; reckoning; short-term; working hours;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is breach of equal treatment only where staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law receive different treatment from the organisation. Consequently, the right to equal treatment does not preclude amendment of a rule or the way in which it is applied. A new rule could be less favourable than the old one, and hence be subject to challenge, without necessarily impairing the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; definition; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; general principle; right; written rule;
Judgment 1855
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 5
Extract:
The complainant appeals against the Executive Head's decision to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the organisation to grant him special leave to attend a two-day training course. "It is common ground that the decision as to whether or not to grant a staff member special leave to attend training courses is discretionary. [T]he obligations under Article 29 of the Service Regulations to facilitate training may involve different considerations when one looks at the desirability of the staff member's taking such training, and when one has regard to the effect of the staff member's absence on the functioning of the service. In the present case, the refusal of special leave was justified by the growing backlog of [work]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 29 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; decision; discretion; enforcement; organisation's interest; special leave; staff regulations and rules; training;
Judgment 1852
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law is consistent to the effect that a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him. [The present complaint] is a general attack which is not tied to any particular application of the impugned rules to the complainant. It will not therefore be considered by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 1329, 1423
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
