Refusal (631,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Refusal
Total judgments found: 229
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
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 2646
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. He states that despite his repeated requests he was never transferred to another directorate. "As to the case law, the complainant relies on Judgment 396 in support of [this] assertion [...]. The issue in that case was whether the head of the Organisation had correctly applied a particular provision of the Staff Regulations authorising him to terminate the appointment of a probationer at any time in the Organisation's interests. The Tribunal stated that '[a]s a rule, before a [probationer] is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank'. It must, however, be noted that this was said in the context of a misunderstanding between the probationer and his supervisor and the Tribunal's observation that such a misunderstanding does not necessarily justify instant dismissal. In the present case, the stated reason for the dismissal was poor performance.
To conclude that in situations of poor performance a staff member on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms. In some circumstances a transfer may be the proper option, but the circumstances of the present case do not warrant this finding."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396
Keywords:
case law; discretion; enforcement; executive head; general principle; grounds; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination of employment; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 2643
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he four persons with respect to whom the complainant seeks the imposition of sanctions have filed applications to intervene in these proceedings and, in the alternative, seek to have their applications treated as complaints. These applications must be refused. So far as concerns the applications to intervene, none of the applicants is in the same position in fact or law as the complainant (see Judgment 2237)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2237
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; difference; disciplinary measure; intervention; refusal; request by a party; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; right;
Judgment 2631
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2629
103rd Session, 2007
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Ordinarily, there is no decision with respect to matters falling outside normal entitlements until a specific claim is made and either expressly or impliedly accepted or rejected (see Judgment 2538). [...] However, it is well settled that a decision does not require any particular formality and may be constituted by any communication that is reasonably capable of being understood to constitute a decision on the matter (see Judgments 532 and 2573)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 2538, 2573
Keywords:
condition; decision; definition; express decision; formal requirements; implied decision; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(a)
Extract:
"A decision to refuse to publish in an international organisation's in-house magazine the corrigendum of an article which, in the opinion of the staff member concerned, injures his personal interests may constitute a breach of that staff member's personal rights and an infringement of his freedom of expression. Insofar as such a decision in itself produces legal effects and infringes the rights of the staff member concerned, it constitutes an administrative act causing injury."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; cause of action; effect; freedom of speech; individual decision; injury; moral injury; organisation; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2573
102nd Session, 2007
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Notification of non-renewal or non-extension of a contract is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms. However, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; contract; decision; effect; extension of contract; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; provision; refusal;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2549
101st Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10, 11 and 13
Extract:
The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
"The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715
Keywords:
analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; official; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same-sex marriage; social benefits; status of complainant;
Judgment 2535
101st Session, 2006
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In the complainant's case, the post he was assigned to [...] was classified as P-5 as of 9 September 1999. [...] However, apparently because the budget did not provide funds for the post until January 2000, he was not in fact promoted until 1 March 2000. The lack of budgetary provision is not a reason which can be validly invoked by an international organisation to deny a staff member a promotion to which he or she would otherwise have a right and to deny him or her the salary which is commensurate with the duties of the post occupied."
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; date; delay; effect; grade; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; right; salary;
Judgment 2515
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".
Keywords:
conduct; consequence; decision; duty to inform; good faith; grounds; increase; organisation's duties; refusal; step; subsidiary; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2494
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2471
99th Session, 2005
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Following a reorganisation the post the complainant held in the Department of General Services (AGS) was transferred to another department. In December 2002 she was reassigned to AGS, though in a different position. She asks to be given back the duties and responsibilites she had in AGS prior to the reorganisation. "The Tribunal considers that this request cannot be granted, for it would imply undoing the reorganisation and reversing the technological changes that have been made, which, as the complainant herself acknowledges in her submissions, were both necessary and predictable. Her position is thus untenable."
Keywords:
claim; difference; liability; post; post held by the complainant; reassignment; refusal; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She considers that she should have been given the preference because she was an internal candidate and by reason of her gender. "It is well settled that [such] preferences [...] must be given effect to where the choice has to be made between candidates who are evenly matched. On the other hand, they have no role to play where there is a significant and relevant difference between the candidates."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; difference; internal candidate; post; refusal; sex discrimination;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2389
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he purpose of home leave is to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections. Regulation 5.3, which denies home leave to staff members whose home country is the country of their official duty station or who continue to reside in their home country, is therefore self-explanatory. Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2, reflects the same reasoning, insofar as it provides that a staff member may lose entitlement to home leave if, following a change in his residential status, he is, in the opinion of the Director General, deemed to be a permanent resident of any country other than that of his nationality, provided that the Director General considers that the continuation of such entitlement would be contrary to the purposes for which the benefit was created."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulations 4.5, paragraph 2, and 5.3
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; condition; consequence; difference; duty station; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official; period; place of origin; purpose; refusal; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2379
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant [...] claims days of special leave, which he had been denied, to sit [...] examinations. The Tribunal notes that it does not have the authority to order such action."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; special leave;
Judgment 2377
98th Session, 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment beyond the statutory retirement age. Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05 "makes it clear that the decision whether or not to grant an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General's discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds, none of which has been established by the complainant. The fact that such extensions may have been granted to a number of other staff members is simply irrelevant in the circumstances. No one has a right to be retained beyond the applicable normal retirement age, which in the complainant's case was 60."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: AIEA Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05
Keywords:
age limit; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; contract; difference; discretion; equal treatment; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; lack of evidence; limits; refusal; retirement; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2370
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."
Keywords:
claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
