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

Request by a party (633, 795, 796,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Request by a party
Total judgments found: 161

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >



  • 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; debt; delay; exception; execution of judgment; formal requirements; general principle; increase; insurance benefit; interest on damages; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; request by a party; retirement; salary;



  • Judgment 2760


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
    Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The intention with which a statement is made is not necessarily determinative of the question whether a statement that is wholly irrelevant is also one that can serve no proper purpose." The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had stated that, by reason of the time he had spent providing legal assistance to staff members, the complainant's work as an examiner had been less satisfactory than it should have been. "That was defamatory. It was also inconsistent with the duty of the EPO to respect the complainant's dignity. In the context of the other comments that were within the limits of the privilege that attaches to proceedings before the Tribunal, it carried the threat of possible administrative consequences for the complainant's employment. Such a remark can serve no proper purpose. Accordingly, it was not privileged and the complainant is entitled to seek relief with respect to it."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514

    Keywords:

    breach; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; counsel; iloat; insurance benefit; intention of parties; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; procedure; purpose; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; security of tenure; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2742


    105th Session, 2008
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "General principle dictates that a person cannot litigate the same issue in separate proceedings, much less in concurrent proceedings."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; difference; general principle; procedure; request by a party; right; same; settlement out of court;

    Consideration 41

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) and asks to be reinstated in her former post. "Although the decision to reassign the complainant to the post of Chief of IAS was taken without authority, it does not follow that she should be reinstated in her former post. That post was lawfully abolished [...]. However, she is entitled to substantial damages notwithstanding that her reassignment was to a post at the same grade."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision; grade; material damages; post; procedural flaw; reassignment; reinstatement; request by a party; same;



  • Judgment 2740


    105th Session, 2008
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2732


    105th Session, 2008
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal rejects the complainant's assertion that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules did not form part of her contract. The complainant's contract stipulated: '[y]our terms of employment, benefits and obligations will be those stated in [the] letter [of appointment], in the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules [...]'. Thus, it is clear that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were specifically incorporated by reference into her contract. As to her claim that she did not have access to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, the complainant could have requested a copy thereof before signing the contract but did not do so."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; request by a party; social benefit; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 2706


    104th Session, 2008
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant, who was sexually harassed by her supervisor, wants the Tribunal to order that she be promoted. "[T]he Organization is of course right in saying that the compensation for her injuries should not take the form of being granted a higher grade. 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."

    Keywords:

    allowance; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; definition; difference; harassment; injury; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; promotion; qualifications; request by a party; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2696


    104th Session, 2008
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 832 that an acquired right is one that a staff member may expect to survive alteration of the staff rules (see also Judgment 1226). The right may derive from the terms of appointment, the staff rules or from a decision. In Judgment 61 it was said that the amendment of a rule to an official's detriment and without his consent amounts to a breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 1226

    Keywords:

    acquired right; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; consequence; contract; decision; definition; injury; international civil servant; provision; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2651


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant cannot demand that his employer contribute financially towards his architectural training given that it is of no present or foreseeable benefit to the Office".

    Keywords:

    organisation's interest; payment; refusal; request by a party; training;



  • 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; international civil servant; locus standi; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; same; 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 and 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; probation; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;



  • Judgment 2644


    103rd Session, 2007
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "There are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action (for example, a payment to his or her bank account) as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]). However, where [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, as in the present case, it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2629

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; international civil servant; interpretation; payment; request by a party; right;



  • 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; difference; disciplinary measure; intervention; refusal; request by a party; right; same;



  • 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:

    complaint allowed; condition; decision; definition; express decision; formal requirements; implied decision; refusal; request by a party; right;



  • Judgment 2585


    102nd Session, 2007
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "While it is true, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 2156, that 'elected representatives of the staff enjoy specific rights and safeguards in accordance with the general principles which govern employment relationships in international organisations and which are also generally recognised in national labour legislation', it is still up to the staff member complaining that such specific rights and safeguards have been violated to prove that fact and not merely rely on bald assertions."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156

    Keywords:

    breach; burden of proof; case law; collective rights; domestic law; general principle; iloat; international civil servant; organisation; request by a party; right; safeguard; staff representative; working relations;



  • Judgment 2565


    101st Session, 2006
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7 (c)

    Extract:

    "A claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought in reasonable time (see Judgment 53, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 53

    Keywords:

    reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; time bar;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    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:

    breach; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; 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; complaint allowed; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; international civil servant; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same; same-sex marriage; social benefit; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2510


    100th Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant's case."

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; evidence; further submissions; order; procedure; request by a party; submissions;



  • Judgment 2498


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4 b)

    Extract:

    "Staff members may at any time object to discriminatory treatment and request that the Organization put an end to it (see Judgment 978, under 20)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 978

    Keywords:

    breach; equal treatment; international civil servant; request by a party; right;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 12.12.2019 ^ top