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

Medical examination (418,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Medical examination
Total judgments found: 38

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 3994


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges CERN’s refusal to recognise the illness from which she says she suffers as occupational.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 1284, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284

    Keywords:

    illness; medical examination; medical opinion;



  • Judgment 3986


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3887.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    If the complainant refuses to undergo the medical examination as required and scheduled by the Disciplinary Committee, the medical assessment will be carried out by a medical expert in psychiatry only on the basis of documents, as the Tribunal decided in similar circumstances (see Judgment 3972, under 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972

    Keywords:

    medical examination;



  • Judgment 3617


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; medical examination;



  • Judgment 3570


    121st Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to end his service on grounds of invalidity and requests his reinstatement.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    invalidity; medical examination; reinstatement;



  • Judgment 3246


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant refused to undergo a new medical examination that the Tribunal had ordered. The Tribunal considered that it could not rule on the complaint which is thus dismissed.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant wilfully refused to undergo the specialised medical examination ordered in Judgment 3145, it is not in a position to rule on her complaint, which must therefore be dismissed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3145

    Keywords:

    expert inquiry; medical examination; refusal;



  • Judgment 2895


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

    Considerations 19 and 20

    Extract:

    The complainant challenged WHO's decision to "waive" in her case the medical examination on separation provided for in Staff Rule 1085. The Tribunal held that the exit medical examination is a mandatory part of the separation protocol. It awarded the complainant moral damages.
    "Staff Rule 1085 reads:
    "A staff member shall be examined immediately prior to his departure by the Staff Physician or by a physician designated by the Organization. If a staff member fails to undergo this medical examination within a reasonable time limit fixed by the Organization, then claims against the Organization arising out of illness or injury which allegedly occurred before the effective date of separation shall not be entertained; furthermore, the effective date of separation shall not be affected."
    "The wording of the above provision makes it clear that a medical examination is mandatory. It follows from the mandatory nature of the medical examination on separation, coupled with the fact that it engages the interests of both parties and not just those of the Organization, that WHO could not unilaterally decide that in the circumstances the requirement of Staff Rule 1085 had been fulfilled. Although that rule contemplates the situation where a staff member fails to undergo the exit medical examination, it also sets out the potentially adverse consequence that the lack of such an examination may have for the staff member in question."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1085

    Keywords:

    medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "The Organization's assertion that the complainant did not specifically request to have an exit medical examination is correct. However, the exit medical examination requirement is not contingent on a staff member requesting to have the examination; it is a mandatory part of the separation protocol."

    Keywords:

    medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that WHO's unilateral decision to "waive" the exit medical examination constitutes a violation of Staff Rule 1085. It also finds that, although there is no evidence that the decision was motivated by malice, the manner in which the Organization dealt with this issue was an affront to the complainant's dignity."

    Keywords:

    medical examination; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2840


    107th Session, 2009
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal rejects WHO's reliance on its letter [...] as being a communication of a decision that the complainant would not need to have an exit medical examination. There is no basis upon which it could be inferred from the statement «the administrative formalities have been completed» that the mandatory exit medical examination provided for in the Staff Rules was being unilaterally waived. Given that an exit medical examination is mandatory and has potentially significant legal consequences for both parties, it would be expected that a deviation from the norm would be specifically communicated."

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2657


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post but the Tribunal considers that persons who have applied for a post in an international organisation and who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. The complainant asks that the Organisation be ordered to waive its immunity to enable him to bring proceedings before a German court. "[T]he Tribunal [recalls that it] has no authority to order the EPO to waive its immunity (see Judgment 933, under 6). It notes, however, that the present judgment creates a legal vacuum and considers it highly desirable that the Organisation should seek a solution affording the complainant access to a court, either by waiving its immunity or by submitting the dispute to arbitration."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 933

    Keywords:

    appointment; arbitration; candidate; claim; competence of tribunal; condition; grounds; handicapped person; judgment of the tribunal; medical examination; medical fitness; municipal court; open competition; organisation; post; refusal; safeguard; waiver of immunity;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
    It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 2145


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 to 8

    Extract:

    "In the Organisation's view, since the payments it was making to the complainant were entirely voluntary, a matter of grace and favour on its part, it was quite at liberty to suspend such payments when the complainant failed to fulfil her obligation to submit to the [...] medical examination [required by the Invalidity Committee]. [It] is wrong. The Invalidity Committee's report [...] was categorical in stating that the complainant must be regarded as not fit for work. That means that she was unable to perform her duties and at a minimum she was entitled to receive the emoluments provided for in Article 62(7) unless and until the Invalidity Committee made a further finding putting an end to her sick leave, extending it, or placing her on permanent disability. But, without the authorisation of the Invalidity Committee, the [Organisation] had no right by its own unilateral action to suspend the payments to which she was entitled by law. [...] There can be no doubt that the [complainant] has a clear obligation to assist the Invalidity Committee and to present herself as and when reasonably required to do so for examination or treatment. If she fails to do so, that might constitute grounds for the Invalidity Committee to declare her sick leave at an end or it might form the basis of disciplinary action. [However, the Organisation] cannot take the law into its own hands without regard for the complainant's rights or its own obligations under the Service Regulations. [...] The highhanded actions of the [Organisation] in cutting the complainant's payments are both unjustified and illegal. The impugned decision must be rescinded."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 62 (7) OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; disability benefit; disciplinary procedure; incapacity; invalidity; medical board; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; payment; pension entitlements; refusal; right; sick leave; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • 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 of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1975


    89th Session, 2000
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant, a security guard, was dismissed for committing a fault: he had disactivated an alarm button to prevent it from setting off inadvertently and had forgotten to tell his colleagues. "The oversight by the Personnel Department, which omitted to carry out the statutory medical examination [on cessation of service], does not affect the lawfulness of the impugned decision."

    Keywords:

    decision; disciplinary measure; due process; effect; medical examination; misconduct; negligence; serious misconduct; termination;



  • Judgment 1964


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; international civil servant; locus standi; medical examination; offer; offer withdrawn; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1901


    88th Session, 2000
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 8 and 9

    Extract:

    The organization refused the complainant both an unsuitability and an invalidity pension. It explains that it couldn't arrange for a final medical examination at the time of the complainant's dismissal because he was in prison. "The Tribunal cannot accept that argument. Under Article R II 4.18 of the Staff Regulations, a medical examination is compulsory when a contract is terminated, for whatever reason. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, [the organization] should have been at particular pains to comply with that rule. In the absence of such an examination the pension fund should have determined whether, upon termination of service, the complainant was to be treated as unfit for work because of a deterioration in his physical or mental health which occurred while he was employed by [the organization]. The administrator of the Pension Fund was, therefore, wrong [...] when he refused to consider the complainant's entitlement to a pension for unsuitability." The case was sent back to the Pension Fund.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.18 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF CERN

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; cern pension fund; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disability benefit; due process; incapacity; invalidity; medical examination; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; procedure; refusal; service-incurred; termination;



  • Judgment 1894


    88th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."

    Keywords:

    evidence; good faith; illness; insurance; insurance benefit; judicial review; limits; medical examination; staff member's duties; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1843


    87th Session, 1999
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 11 and 12

    Extract:

    The complainant did not attend the compulsory medical examination on termination of appointment which he had been requested to undergo. "A medical examination at the time of termination is not a mere formality: it is intended to establish with some degree of certainty - in the interests of both parties - a staff member's state of health upon termination. [...] The Tribunal holds that Article R II 4.20 b) of the Staff Regulations disqualified the complainant from making a claim for compensation in respect of a work-related injury or illness discovered after termination."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.20 B) OF THE ESO STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    allowance; enforcement; illness; medical examination; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1640


    83rd Session, 1997
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "The medical opinions of independent medical practitioners would ordinarily prevail and the Tribunal would not interfere. But this is no ordinary case. [...] The Tribunal had to appoint a medical expert to give a final opinion on the complainant's medical condition [...]. That expert found that she was not fit to return to work", a finding that was at odds with the medical opinions that the Agency has relied on to justify its decision.

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; different appraisals; exception; illness; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical fitness; medical opinion; sick leave;



  • Judgment 1516


    81st Session, 1996
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The complainant wants the Tribunal to 'declare that UNESCO has failed to act and itself make the final determination [regarding the degree of her invalidity] that the organization has for years been refusing' her. Having put up with years of dilatoriness and prevarication,she is understandably anxious to have her entitlements speedily determined. Being unable, however, to rule on the medical aspects of her case, the Tribunal has no choice but to send the case back to the organization for completion of the process of review in keeping with the rules."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; expert inquiry; iloat statute; invalidity; judicial review; medical board; medical examination; medical opinion; rate;



  • Judgment 1432


    79th Session, 1995
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    It is immaterial to the fact of recruitment that the decision to recruit her [...] may not have followed the necessary formalities. [...] The lack of prior medical clearance for the new post does not amount to a fatal flaw in the mutual agreement between the WHO's agents and the complainant."

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; decision quashed; lack of consent; medical examination;



  • Judgment 1104


    71st Session, 1991
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant was asked to report to an expert medical examination to examine his fitness for shift work. He objects to questions the organization put to the expert. Though the complaint is receivable, the Tribunal dismisses it on the merits since the material questions were relevant to the dispute and did not deprive the complainant of any safeguard. Once the medical expert has reported and the administrative decision been taken, the complainant may submit a further complaint bearing on the dispute as a whole.

    Keywords:

    expert inquiry; incapacity; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; procedure; receivability of the complaint; safeguard;



  • Judgment 947


    65th Session, 1988
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2 and 3

    Extract:

    "the tribunal accepts the findings of the medical inquiry, which establish finally the medical aspects of the case. in view of the findings the tribunal, before delivering final judgment, requires from the complainant his replies to the following questions: (1) what invalidity pension is he claiming in compensation for total work disability caused as to 50 per cent by the accident ? (2) what is the total amount he is claiming in compensation for loss of function of the foot and of this amount what portion is attributable to loss of enjoyment of life ?"

    Keywords:

    disability benefit; expert inquiry; further submissions; incapacity; interlocutory order; invalidity; loss of enjoyment of life; medical examination;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top