TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
You searched for:
Keywords: TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
Total judgments found: 1,647
< previous | 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, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 | next >
Judgment 2063
91st session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
"THE TRIBUNAL IS FULLY COMPETENT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE OFFICE IS RIGHT IN MAINTAINING THAT [THE INSURANCE BROKER] VAN BREDA CORRECTLY EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY IN REJECTING THE REQUEST TO MEET THE COST OF TRANSFERRING THE COMPLAINANT TO A CONVALESCENT HOME."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; discretion; insurance; judicial review; refund; refusal; request;
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
"THE AUTHORITY OF THE INSURANCE BROKERS GOES BEYOND A SIMPLE RIGHT TO MAKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK OF THE CLAIMS IT RECEIVES [...]. [INSURERS] HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHECK WHETHER, UNDER THE INSURANCE CONTRACT, THEY ARE LIABLE FOR THE COSTS OF THE CARE DISPENSED. BUT THEY MUST SO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY AS TO PROVIDE THE INSURED WITH A GUARANTEE THAT THEIR CLAIMS TO COVERAGE ARE EXAMINED WITH ALL DUE CARE."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; contract; discretion; insurance; insurance benefit; refund; request; safeguard;
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
AFTER THE COMPLAINANT UNDERWENT SURGERY, THE INSURANCE BROKERS REFUSED TO COVER HIS CONVALESCENCE IN A HOME. "IN ORDER TO ASSESS ANY PHYSICAL INJURY SUFFERED BY THE COMPLAINANT, IT IS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE LATER CONSEQUENCES FOR HIS HEALTH OF THE REFUSAL TO MEET THE COSTS OF HIS ADMISSION TO A CONVALESCENT HOME, AND THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT AS A RESULT STAY IN SUCH A HOME. THESE ARE PURELY MEDICAL MATTERS WHICH [...] NEED TO BE REFERRED TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE".
Keywords:
claim; competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; illness; insurance benefit; medical board; receivability; refund; refusal; request;
Judgment 2060
91st session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 7 (A)
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT THE DECISION NOT TO SHORTLIST HIM WAS NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. BUT THE PLEA CANNOT SUCCEED. PRECEDENT HAS IT THAT WHEN AN ORGANISATION INFORMS CANDIDATES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL, IT MUST TAKE CARE NOT TO HARM THEIR PROSPECTS. MOREOVER, IN ANNOUNCING THE RESULTS OF A COMPETITION AND, MORE GENERALLY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SEVERAL CANDIDATES, AS HERE, THE REASONS FOR THE CHOICE NEED NOT BE GIVEN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DECISION. IT IS ENOUGH FOR THE REASONS TO BE GIVEN IN SOME LATER PROCEDURE (SEE JUDGMENTS 1990 AND 2035 AND THE OTHERS CITED THEREIN)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2035
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competition; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; refusal; respect for dignity;
CONSIDERATION 4
Extract:
"CANDIDATES WHO APPLY FOR A POST TO BE FILLED BY COMPETITION, WHATEVER THEIR HOPES OF SUCCESS MAY BE, ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN KEEPING WITH THE BASIC RULES OF FAIR COMPETITION. AN ORGANISATION MUST BE CAREFUL TO ABIDE BY THE RULES ON SELECTION AND WHEN THE PROCESS PROVES FLAWED, THE TRIBUNAL WILL QUASH ANY RESULTING APPOINTMENT, ALBEIT ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORGANISATION MUST 'SHIELD' THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE FROM ANY INJURY (SEE FOR EXAMPLE JUDGMENTS 1990 AND 2020 AND THE OTHERS CITED THEREIN)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 2057
91st session, 2001
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
"AS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND IN JUDGMENT 1682, CONFIRMING THE PRECEDENT IN JUDGMENT 1329 [...], A LINE OF ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED THAT WOULD ALLOW APPEALS TO LIE SINE DIE AGAINST PAST DECISIONS IN A MATTER AS DELICATE AS THE SETTING AND PERIODIC ADJUSTMENT OF STAFF PAY."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329, 1682
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; period; receivability; salary; scale;
CONSIDERATION 9
Extract:
FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS 1682 AND 1887, ADJUSTMENTS OF THE 1995-1996 SALARY SCALES HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVELY RAISED. THE ORGANISATION PAID THE DIFFERENCE IN SALARY BUT DID NOT ADJUST THE SALARY SCALES FOR THE FOLLOWING YEARS (THOSE SALARY SCALES HAD BEEN CALCULATED BASED ON THE OLD 1995-1996 SALARY SCALES). THE TRIBUNAL STATES THAT "THE [ORGANISATION]'S RETROACTIVE RECONSTITUTION OF THE ADJUSTMENTS HAD THE PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF LIMITING THE APPLICATION OF THE [...] STAFF'S IMPROVED SALARY SCALES TO A SINGLE YEAR, AND OF REDUCING THEIR SALARY LEVELS [...] AFTER [...] 1996. THE RESULT IS AN IMPAIRMENT OF RIGHTS: STAFF ARE ENTITLED TO EXPECT THAT ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR PAY WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SALARY SCALES WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED LAWFULLY FOR THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE ADJUSTMENT."
Keywords:
accumulation; adjustment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; effect; increase; international civil servant; purport; right; salary; scale;
Judgment 2054
91st session, 2001
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 10
Extract:
"THE TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COMPLAINANT THAT AS A DISABLED FORMER STAFF MEMBER HE IS ENTITLED TO A RIGHT TO REASSIGNMENT. THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR CONFERRING ON HIM A PREFERENTIAL STATUS. AS WITH ANY JOB APPLICANT, HE HAS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES AND APPLY FOR ANY DESIRED VACANT POST. TO RULE OTHERWISE WOULD, IN EFFECT, INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICABLE RULES TO UNDULY FAVOUR DISABLED FORMER STAFF MEMBERS. AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN JUDGMENT 637 [...] THE STAFF (MUCH LESS FORMER EMPLOYEES) 'MAY NOT DEMAND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES GOVERNING THEIR EMPLOYMENT'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 637
Keywords:
amendment; candidate; competition; handicapped person; priority; reassignment; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 2053
91st session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT WAS ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS. THERE BEING NO SUITABLE POST AT THE END OF THIS PERIOD, THIS LEAVE WAS EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS. "WHAT THE COMPLAINANT ASKED FOR [AT THE DATE OF HER REINTEGRATION] WAS THE RECALCULATION OF HER RECKONABLE EXPERIENCE AND HER GRADE; IN OTHER WORDS SHE WAS SEEKING PROMOTION AS A RESULT OF EXPERIENCE GAINED WHILE ON UNPAID LEAVE. PROMOTION IS CAREFULLY REGULATED UNDER ARTICLE 49 [OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS]. THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES FOR SIX DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROMOTION, BUT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PROMOTION FOR HAVING GAINED ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE WHILE ON LEAVE. NOR IS THERE PROVISION FOR ANY RECALCULATION OF THE CALCULATION MADE ON RECRUITMENT. THIS CLAIM FAILS."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 49 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; reinstatement; special leave; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2052
91st session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 6
Extract:
"THE DECISION NOT TO GIVE PERMISSION TO SPEND SICK LEAVE ELSEWHERE THAN AT THE STAFF MEMBER'S PLACE OF RESIDENCE IS CLEARLY DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE. IT IS WELL-ESTABLISHED BY THE CASE LAW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT A DISCRETIONARY DECISION IS SUBJECT TO LIMITED REVIEW."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; duty station; judicial review; limits; residence; sick leave;
Judgment 2051
91st session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT HAD APPLIED FOR ANOTHER POST WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. WHILE HE WAS ON LEAVE IN ORDER TO PREPARE HIS DAUGHTER'S WEDDING, HE WAS INVITED BY TELEPHONE TO ATTEND AN INTERVIEW WITHIN TWO DAYS. THE COMPLAINANT HAVING STATED HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE INTERVIEW IN THAT TIMEFRAME, HIS NAME WAS DELETED FROM THE LIST OF CANDIDATES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE. "THE FAILURE TO GIVE REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE COMPLAINANT TO ATTEND AN INTERVIEW BY REFUSING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPLAINANT AT THE TIME, FOLLOWED BY THE ELIMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT FROM CONSIDERATION WHEN HE COULD NOT ATTEND, CONSTITUTES [A] FLAW IN THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE SELECTION FOR THIS POST."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; flaw; notice; post; refusal; selection board;
Judgment 2049
91st session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 5
Extract:
AFTER LENGHTY NEGOCIATIONS, THE COMPLAINANT ACCEPTED THE OFFER OF SEPARATION BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT (WHICH INCREASED BY 50% HIS TERMINATION INDEMNITY ON THE CONDITION THAT HE WOULD NOT CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF SEPARATION EITHER BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD OR THE TRIBUNAL). HE PLEADS LACK OF CONSENT. "THE COMPLAINANT CITES FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND A 'REACTIVE ANXIO-DEPRESSIVE CLINICAL CONTEXT' TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS IN NO STATE TO CONSENT FREELY. BUT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT HE HAD BEEN EXAMINED BY AN EXPERT CHOSEN BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIS DOCTOR AND THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF [THE ORGANIZATION] AND THAT HE HAD BEEN FOUND FIT TO RESUME WORK AS FROM JUNE 1996. THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR DOUBTING THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD ALL HIS MENTAL FACULTIES WHEN, AFTER LENGTHY NEGOTIATIONS, HE FINALLY ACCEPTED AN OFFER WHICH AFFORDED HIM SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL BENEFITS. HE HAS NEITHER PROVED THAT HIS CONSENT TO THE NEGOTIATED TERMINATION WAS DEFICIENT NOR PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO CAST DOUBT ON ITS VALIDITY."
Keywords:
collective bargaining; contract; evidence; lack of consent; medical fitness; non-renewal; offer; separation from service; terminal entitlements; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 2048
91st session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 12 AND 15
Extract:
SENDING A THREATENING LETTER TO A COLLEAGUE IS UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT BY AN INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVANT. THE TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A VALID REASON FOR NOT RENEWING A CONTRACT.
Keywords:
conduct; contract; decision; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; grounds; misconduct; non-renewal; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; working relations;
Judgment 2047
91st session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANT ADOPTS THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE APPEALS COMMITTEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE [ORGANISATION] WAS OBLIGATED TO APPOINT ITS OWN MEDICAL OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEALING WITH HER CLAIM AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE MEDICAL ADVISER APPOINTED BY [THE INSURANCE COMPANY] VAN BREDA FOR THAT PURPOSE. FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO SO HOLD WOULD AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF THE ORGANISATION'S RIGHT TO APPOINT THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF ITS CHOICE. THE FACT THAT IT SELECTS AND RELIES ON THE SAME MEDICAL ADVISER AS THE ONE APPOINTED BY THE INSURER, WHOM IT HAS ENGAGED TO CARRY OUT ITS OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE HEALTH COVERAGE TO ITS STAFF, IS NOT IN THE LEAST SURPRISING. SUCH APPOINTMENT CANNOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE COMPLAINANT WHO RETAINS THE RIGHT GIVEN BY ARTICLE 90 [OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS] TO HAVE ANY CONTESTED ISSUE RELATING TO MEDICAL MATTERS DETERMINED BY THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 90 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; insurance; invalidity; medical board; medical consultant; medical opinion; organisation's duties;
CONSIDERATION 13
Extract:
"WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM TO BE PROVIDED WITH COPIES OF ANY MEDICAL REPORTS RELIED UPON BY [THE INSURANCE BROKERS] VAN BREDA, IT IS TRITE LAW THAT A STAFF MEMBER'S RIGHT TO SEE MEDICAL REPORTS MAY NOT ORDINARILY BE CHALLENGED. AS SUCH, THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH COPIES OF MEDICAL REPORTS CONTAINED IN VAN BREDA'S FILE RELATING TO THIS MATTER. WHETHER OR NOT THE [ORGANISATION] HAS THESE DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION IS IRRELEVANT. AS THE POLICY HOLDER, IT HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE COMPLAINANT BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THESE DOCUMENTS AND MUST ENSURE THAT SHE IS PROVIDED WITH THE INFORMATION AS SOON AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. [...] IT IS OF NO AVAIL THAT SOME OR ALL OF THE REPORTS IN QUESTION MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT'S OWN DOCTORS: SHE IS ENTITLED TO KNOW FROM VAN BREDA EXACTLY WHAT MEDICAL INFORMATION ABOUT HER IT HAS RECEIVED AND FROM WHOM."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty to inform; insurance; medical opinion; medical records; organisation's duties; right;
Judgment 2045
91st session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
"AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECALLED IN JUDGMENT 1684 [...], MEDICAL RECORDS ARE STRICTLY PERSONAL AND THE STAFF MEMBER'S RIGHT TO SEE THEM MAY NOT ORDINARILY BE CHALLENGED."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; duty to inform; medical records; right;
Judgment 2040
90th session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 5
Extract:
"AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN MANY JUDGMENTS, A DECISION BY AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT IS A DISCRETIONARY ONE AND AS SUCH IS SUBJECT TO ONLY LIMITED REVIEW. IT MAY BE QUASHED ONLY IF IT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT AUTHORITY, OR IN BREACH OF A RULE OF FORM OR OF PROCEDURE, OR IF IT RESTED ON AN ERROR OF FACT OR OF LAW, OR IF SOME ESSENTIAL FACT WAS OVERLOOKED, OR IF THERE WAS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, OR IF CLEARLY MISTAKEN CONCLUSIONS WERE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REVIEW WITH SPECIAL CAUTION IN SUCH CASES AND WILL NOT REPLACE THE ORGANISATION'S ASSESSMENT OF THE CANDIDATES WITH ITS OWN (SEE JUDGMENT 1497, IN RE FLORES)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2039
90th session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 4
Extract:
"PRECEDENT SAYS THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO EXHAUST THE INTERNAL REMEDIES CANNOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF PARALYSING THE EXERCISE OF THE COMPLAINANTS' RIGHTS. COMPLAINANTS MAY THEREFORE GO STRAIGHT TO THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE COMPETENT BODIES ARE NOT ABLE TO DECIDE ON AN ISSUE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE JUDGMENTS 1829, IN RE MULLER-ENGELMANN, 1968, IN RE CONCANNON, AND THE NUMEROUS JUDGMENTS CITED THEREIN). HOWEVER, A COMPLAINANT CAN MAKE USE OF THIS POSSIBILITY ONLY WHERE HE HAS DONE HIS UTMOST, TO NO AVAIL, TO ACCELERATE THE INTERNAL PROCEDURE AND WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THAT THE APPEAL BODY WAS NOT ABLE TO REACH A DECISION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME (SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, JUDGMENTS 1674, IN RE GOSSELIN UNDER 6(B), AND 1970, IN RE WHITE). IN GENERAL, A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR THE DATE ON WHICH A DECISION MAY BE EXPECTED IS ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPELLANT WANTS THE PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW ITS NORMAL COURSE, AND GIVES GROUNDS FOR ALLEGING UNJUSTIFIED DELAY IF THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY DILIGENCE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER THE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ABANDONED OR WHETHER THE STAFF MEMBER HAS IMPLICITLY CONSENTED TO THE SUSPENSION OF HIS APPEAL IN LAW OR IN FACT. IN SUCH CASES, THE CASE LAW SAYS THAT THE STAFF MEMBER MUST INDICATE CLEARLY IF HE WANTS THE PROCEDURE TO CONTINUE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND IN ONE CASE THAT A STAFF MEMBER HAD NOT MET THIS REQUIREMENT BECAUSE AN INTERNAL APPEAL HE HAD FILED WAS NOT REFERRED TO THE INTERNAL APPEALS BODY OF THE ORGANISATION, THE ADMINISTRATION HAVING TAKEN STEPS TO REACH AN AGREED SETTLEMENT TO THE DISPUTE. AS THE STAFF MEMBER HAD NOT SOUGHT THE CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL OF THE PROCEDURE, IT WAS FOUND THAT HE HAD NOT PURSUED HIS APPEAL "DILIGENTLY" AND SO DID NOT QUALIFY TO FILE A COMPLAINT DIRECTLY WITH THE TRIBUNAL (SEE JUDGMENT 1970). SIMILARLY, IN A CASE IN WHICH THE INTERNAL APPEAL HAD BEEN FOLLOWED BY NEGOTIATIONS IN ORDER TO REACH A SETTLEMENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE STAFF MEMBER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TURNING TO THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT FIRST INDICATING EITHER THAT THE PROCEDURE SHOULD FOLLOW ITS COURSE IN PARALLEL WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS OR THAT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AGAIN WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, AND THEN WAITING A REASONABLE TIME TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED (SEE JUDGMENT 1674 UNDER 6(B))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; collective bargaining; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2037
90th session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 3
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANTS CHALLENGE THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER. THE APPEALS COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPEALS HAD NOT BEEN FILED IN TIME. BUT THE COMPLAINANTS ARGUE THAT THE CHALLENGED APPOINTMENT WAS NOT DEFINITIVE UNTIL THE OFFER HAD BEEN SIGNED AND THE CONDITIONS FOR APPOINTMENT SATISFIED. "WHEN WHAT IS CHALLENGED IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN AN ORGANISATION AND A FUTURE EMPLOYEE, THE ACT WHICH MAY BE IMPUGNED IS THE CONTRACT AS COMMUNICATED BY THE ORGANISATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OPEN TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO APPEAL INTERNALLY SUCH AS A MEDICAL EXAMINATION STILL TO BE UNDERGONE [...] LEGAL CERTAINTY REQUIRES COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANISATION TO BE RELIABLE SO THAT ALL CONCERNED KNOW WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR AN APPEAL STARTS TO RUN. THIS IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT WHEN THE ORGANISATION IS NOT BOUND TO REVEAL THE EXACT CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT. IN THIS INSTANCE, [...] SINCE THE ORGANISATION HAD ALREADY NOTIFIED ITS DECISION AND ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE FUTURE [STAFF MEMBER] ON HIS TERMS OF APPOINTMENT, THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT AND THE PRIOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION APPEARED TO BE MERE FORMALITIES. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHEER PEDANTRY TO INSIST THAT THEY BE COMPLETED AND THE STAFF SO INFORMED BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE [STAFF MEMBER] WAS ANNOUNCED." THE TIME LIMIT FOR AN APPEAL HAD THEREFORE STARTED TO RUN AS SOON AS THE PERSONNEL HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE CONTESTED APPOINTMENT.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2034
90th session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
"THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT REINSTATEMENT IS SUBJECT TO TWO CONDITIONS. FIRST, THERE MUST BE A VACANT POST AND, SECONDLY, THE STAFF MEMBER MUST BE QUALIFIED FOR IT. [MOREOVER], REINSTATEMENT IS INADVISABLE WHEN AN EMPLOYER HAS VALID REASONS FOR LOSING CONFIDENCE IN AN EMPLOYEE. AND [THE ORGANISATION] HAS. IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH [HIS SUPERVISOR] WITHOUT THE LATTER'S KNOWLEDGE. EVEN IF HE DID SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT HIS CASE, SUCH BEHAVIOUR IS UNACCEPTABLE AND FULLY WARRANTS THE [ORGANISATION]'S LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. THAT BEING SO, REINSTATEMENT IS NOT ADVISABLE."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; conduct; evidence; qualifications; recording; reinstatement; vacancy;
Judgment 2032
90th session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 17
Extract:
"EXEMPTION FROM NATIONAL TAXES IS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE AND IS AN IMPORTANT GUARANTEE OF INDEPENDENCE AND OBJECTIVITY. IT CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND UPON THE WHIM OF NATIONAL TAXING AUTHORITIES [...]."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; independence; international civil servant; member state; privileges and immunities; safeguard; salary; tax;
CONSIDERATION 14
Extract:
"WHERE A STATE IMPOSES TAX UPON ITS NATIONALS WHO ARE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVANTS IN RECEIPT OF INCOME SOME OF WHICH IS TAX EXEMPT AND SOME OF WHICH IS NOT THE ONLY PROPER METHOD OF DETERMINING HOW MUCH TAX SHOULD ACTUALLY BE PAID IS TO CALCULATE THE HYPOTHETICAL AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE DUE IF THE EXEMPT INCOME HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; international civil servant; member state; privileges and immunities; reckoning; salary; tax;
CONSIDERATION 15
Extract:
"IF A MEMBER STATE IN BREACH OF ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS TAXES THE EXEMPT INCOME OF A STAFF MEMBER, THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT TAX CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND UPON THE GRACE AND FAVOUR OF THAT STATE."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; international civil servant; member state; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; refund; refusal; salary; tax;
CONSIDERATION 16
Extract:
"ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF STAFF ASSESSMENT IS SURELY TO PUT THE ORGANISATION IN FUNDS TO PROTECT ITS EMPLOYEES AGAINST STATES WHICH REFUSE TO RECOGNISE THEIR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; international civil servant; member state; privileges and immunities; purpose; refund; refusal; salary; staff assessment; tax;
CONSIDERATION 17
Extract:
"IF THE ORGANISATION DOES NOT [...] CONTEST THE EXEMPT STATUS OF THE COMPLAINANT, IT IS ITS DUTY TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE, TO REIMBURSE HIM THE AMOUNT OF TAX HE HAS PAID TO THE STATE, AND TO EMPLOY ITS OWN CONSIDERABLE POWER, AUTHORITY AND INFLUENCE TO HAVE THE [...] AUTHORITIES [OF THAT STATE] CHANGE THEIR POSITION. [...] BY REQUIRING HIM TO APPEAL AGAINST HIS [...] TAX ASSESSMENT WHILE CONCEDING THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF HIS [...] INCOME THE ORGANISATION HAS FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO THE COMPLAINANT."
Keywords:
complaint allowed; international civil servant; member state; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; refund; refusal; salary; tax;
Judgment 2027
90th session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 4
Extract:
"EUROCONTROL CONTENDS THAT THE COMPLAINT IS IRRECEIVABLE BECAUSE THE "DECISION" TO TRANSFER HIM WAS NOT A REAL DECISION COMING FROM AN APPOINTING AUTHORITY, THUS, HE FAILS TO SHOW INJURY AND HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION. THE OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVABILITY FAIL. EVEN A SIMPLE MEASURE ON A MATTER OF INTERNAL REORGANISATION SUCH AS TRANSFER MAY SOMETIMES IMPAIR THE STAFF MEMBER'S RIGHTS AND LEGITIMATE INTERESTS (SEE JUDGMENT 1078, IN RE SCHAACK, AMONG OTHERS)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; burden of proof; cause of action; complaint allowed in part; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;
CONSIDERATION 12
Extract:
"A QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE IN DUTIES RATHER THAN A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR NATURE OR INTRINSIC IMPORTANCE IS NOT A DECISIVE CRITERION ON WHICH TO BASE A DIFFERENCE IN GRADE BETWEEN TWO OFFICIALS WHO PERFORM EXACTLY THE SAME DUTIES."
Keywords:
complaint allowed in part; criteria; difference; grade; international civil servant; post; post classification; post description; same;
Judgment 2025
90th session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 10
Extract:
THE COMPLAINT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIELD AGAINST HIS LIKING. AT THE END OF THE INTERNAL PROCEDURE, THE ORGANISATION DECIDED TO REASSIGN HIM TO HEADQUARTERS. "IT THEREBY ADMITTED [...] THAT IT HAD FAILED TO ASSESS THE COMPLAINANT'S CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE CARE REQUIRED BY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS THAT AFFECT ITS STAFF. THAT IN ITSELF WARRANTS THE CONCLUSION THAT, EVEN THOUGH HIS ASSIGNMENT [TO HEADQUARTERS] MET THE COMPLAINANT'S WISHES IN PART, IT DID NOT FULLY MAKE UP FOR THE INJURY CAUSED BY HIS TRANSFER [TO THE FIELD]. CONSEQUENTLY [...] THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL WAS WRONG NOT TO AWARD HIM THE COMPENSATION HE HAD CLAIMED."
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; compensation; complaint allowed in part; executive head; field; headquarters; injury; internal appeal; mistake of law; organisation's duties; reassignment; refusal; request; transfer;
Judgment 2023
90th session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 10
Extract:
"THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE APPLIES TO THE GRADING OF POSTS [...] STEP INCREASES WITHIN A GRADE ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PART II, SECTION 1, PARAGRAPHS 20 AND 30.1 WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
applicable law; equal treatment; general principle; increment; post classification; salary; same;
Judgment 2021
90th session, 2001
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 23
Extract:
"THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE COMPLAINANT WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT [THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL] AND [ONE OF THE ORGANISATION'S SENIOR OFFICERS] BOTH ATTENDED THE SAME SCHOOL AND THAT [THE PRESIDENT] WAS DIRECTOR OF AN INSTITUTE AT WHICH [ANOTHER SENIOR OFFICER] TAUGHT ARE [...] WITHOUT MERIT [...] IF HIS OPINION WERE TO BE FOLLOWED, STUDENTS HAVING ATTENDED AN INSTITUTION SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM JUDGING CASES IN WHICH THE NAMES OF OTHER STUDENTS OF THE SAME INSTITUTION APPEAR."
Keywords:
application for review; bias; degree; international civil servant; president of tribunal; same;
< previous | 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, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 | next >
|
