|
|
 |
|
|
No provision (239, 240,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: No provision
Total judgments found: 80
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3120
113th Session, 2012
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that when the term "spouse" is used in an organisation's staff rules or regulations without being otherwise defined therein, it is not limited to individuals within a marriage but may also cover persons in other forms of union (see in particular Judgments 2760, under 4, and 2860, under 9). Thus, in several recent judgments concerning cases where the applicable provisions were couched in similar language, the Tribunal held that the organisations concerned had to recognise same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590 or Judgment 2760 [...]) or unions in the form of registered partnerships when the relevant national law made it possible to consider persons in such unions as "spouses" (see Judgments 2549 and 2550, and Judgment 2860 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590, 2760, 2860
Keywords:
applicable law; definition; domestic law; marital status; no provision; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3021
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Suspension of Commissary privileges.
"[T]he nature of a privilege is such that it may be suspended or withdrawn as an interim measure to prevent abuse even if there is no specific provision to that effect in the relevant rules."
Keywords:
no provision; privileges and immunities; provisional decision; staff regulations and rules; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; exception; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; official; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard;
Judgment 2994
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Amendment of the rules concerning the health insurance coverage of spouses gainfully employed outside the Office.
"[I]n the absence of a specified procedure or some other provision indicating to the contrary, an internal appeals body necessarily has power to determine what procedure should be followed when multiple appeals are filed with respect to the same issue."
Keywords:
competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2926
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
"The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Following his promotion to grade A5, the complainant was informed that his promotion to that grade was due to a clerical error and that the Administration's intention was to promote him to grade A4(2). Thus, his promotion to grade A5 was reversed. He challenged that decision but the President decided to maintain it. The Tribunal found that his promotion to grade A5 stemmed from a purely factual error and not from the Administration's genuine intention and that it could therefore be reversed. It nevertheless awarded him compensation for moral injury.
"The nub of this case is whether the President could lawfully reverse the decision [...] to promote the complainant to grade A5 [...]. Since the Service Regulations do not contain any specific provisions governing the conditions for the reversal or revocation of administrative decisions, this question can be settled only by referring to the general principles of law applied by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; no provision; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2893
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
"This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
Keywords:
breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The first argument advanced by the complainant in relation to the decision to suspend him from duty is that the Deputy Secretary-General had no authority to take such a decision but, rather, as the Secretary-General was an interested party, the question of suspension should have been referred to the ITU Council [...]. It is correct that it was incumbent on the Secretary-General to refrain from taking any decision concerning the incidents that occurred in his office [...]. As stated in Judgment 179, "his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds". Although Staff Rule 10.1.3 refers only to suspension by the Secretary-General, the doctrine of necessity allows that, where there is a conflict of interest, authority is to be granted to some other appropriate person. However, that does not mean that the question should have been referred to the Council. That body has certain powers with respect to elected officials, but not with respect to unelected officials. As an elected official and as the next most senior official, the Deputy Secretary-General was the appropriate person to exercise authority with respect to the incidents that occurred [...], even if the relevant provision did not so provide."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; competence; decision; executive body; no provision; recusal;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 2805
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4, 5 and 7
Extract:
The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision to reject his complaint of harassment, saying that his counsel would provide further details at a later date. The EPO dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a statement in support thereof. Before the Tribunal, the Organisation contends that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
"The issue at the centre of the complaint is whether it is necessary to provide grounds of appeal."
"There is no express provision in the Service Regulations or in Circular No. 286 requiring that grounds of appeal be specified when lodging an appeal."
"Where regulations and rules or other written documents are silent as to a matter, a term dealing with that matter may be implied, but only if it is so obviously comprehended within the text used in the regulations and rules or other document that its statement is unnecessary, or, if the term to be implied is necessary to give effect to some other term."
Keywords:
general principle; interpretation; interpretation of rules; no provision; provision; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension. However, interest on arrears was paid only to the members of staff who had filed a complaint with the Tribunal; the complainant was not among them. He is consequently challenging the decision not to pay him interest on arrears.
"(a) In the absence of any particular rule requiring the Organisation to pay interest on arrears to a staff member where a benefit due to that person is paid belatedly, such interest is not in principle due until the creditor - i.e. the staff member to whom the benefit is owed - has served notice on the Organisation to pay. This apparently harsh solution is justified because no particular formalities are required for the service of such notice, it being sufficient for the creditor to request payment of the amount due. [...]
(b) However, this rule does not apply where the debt is one which falls due on a fixed date. In such a case the due date is equivalent to the service of notice (dies interpellat pro homine). The debtor owes interest on arrears as from that date, without any need for the creditor to establish that he or she has requested payment of the due sum. The same applies where the debt falls due periodically at a fixed date, as in the case of a salary.
The salary adjustment at issue forms an integral part of the salary. Moreover, the salary, plus increments, is due on precise dates at the end of every month. In the instant case the payment of the staff member's salary, including the adjustment thereto, did not depend on a request from that person. The claim for interest on arrears is therefore well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; amount; complainant; date; debt; delay; exception; execution of judgment; formal requirements; general principle; increase; interest on damages; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; request by a party; retirement; salary;
Judgment 2702
104th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is well established that the party seeking to rely on an unwritten rule bears the onus of proving the substance of the rule. This applies equally to a party seeking to rely on an established practice."
Keywords:
burden of proof; no provision; organisation's duties; practice; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2649
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
Keywords:
breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It has been consistently held by the Tribunal that an employee of an international organisation has a right to be heard in disciplinary proceedings and, as said in Judgment 203, that 'right includes inter alia the opportunity to participate in the examination of the evidence'. As that judgment makes clear, that is so even 'in the absence of any explicit text'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; case law; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; no provision; official; organisation; right; right to reply;
Judgment 2411
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is not acceptable that the Administration has attempted to upgrade its practice to the status of law when the law itself says nothing of the sort; nor can the practice of an organisation be invoked to deny its officials their written rights. Fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to the known facts outweigh in this case the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This approach indeed upholds that principle. The complainant did not act against any fundamental tenet of the law; he was simply late – yet not unreasonably late, as well as being in good faith – in claiming his rights, whereas no express time limits are set out in the rules."
Keywords:
applicable law; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; no provision; organisation's duties; practice; right; written rule;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
