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

Right (635,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right
Total judgments found: 229

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >

  • Judgment 3579


    121st Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant complains of a breach of his “procedural rights” before the Appeals Board, the discontinuation of two elements of his mobility allowance and harassment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    breach; harassment; procedural flaw; right;



  • Judgment 3573


    121st Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: After taking early retirement, the complainant refused to return his special identity card and the special registration plates of his vehicle.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    early retirement; privileges and immunities; right;



  • Judgment 3295


    116th Session, 2014
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229

    Keywords:

    advisory body; confidential evidence; decision; effect; general principle; inquiry; international civil servant; provision; report; right; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3287


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who reported his suspicions that someone was unlwafully accessing his professional email account, impugned the decision to deny him access to the investigation report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    compensation; complaint; delay; inquiry; moral damages; right;



  • Judgment 3282


    116th Session, 2014
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The guarantee of access to justice is a guarantee of access to a judge, which the complainant has in his ability to bring a complaint before the Tribunal. [...] In this case, Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules provides that there is no internal remedy for decisions regarding non-renewal of contract and as such, the complainant has direct access to the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; internal appeal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3280


    116th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    condition; discretion; personal promotion; right;



  • Judgment 3258


    116th Session, 2014
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants argued that their rights of staff representatives had been violated, but their claim for pecuniary compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal.

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainants challenge final decisions maintaining earlier decisions not to grant the compensation claims submitted by the complainants, who considered that they had suffered injury on account of violations of the rights of staff representatives.
    "By their very nature, such violations of the rights of staff representatives cannot, under any circumstances, give rise to any right to financial compensation in favour of an individual staff member or his or her successors in title."

    Keywords:

    compensation; decision; injury; right; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3224


    115th Session, 2013
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 3223


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
    The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; complaint allowed in part; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he essential purpose of the staff regulations of an international organisation is to promote that organisation’s interests while at the same time safeguarding the rights of its staff."

    Keywords:

    international civil servant; organisation's interest; purpose; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, and plainly there is nothing abnormal in stipulating that an extension of appointment beyond that age limit, which by definition constitutes an exceptional measure, can be granted only if it is in the interest of the service."

    Keywords:

    age limit; career; condition; exception; extension; organisation's interest; retirement; right;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
    "In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."

    Keywords:

    age limit; composition; discretion; extension; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
    "The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
    [T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension; general principle; grounds; international civil servant; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 3200


    115th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "Paragraph 5.2 [of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual] must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the fundamental right of due process to know the name of the accuser except in those circumstances where revealing the identity of the accuser could undermine the integrity of the investigation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Paragraph 5.2 of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; right; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3156


    114th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, who are former staff representatives, unsuccessfully challenge decisions which, in their view, constituted violations of the right of staff representation.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "Since organisations must prevent [any] abuse of the right of free speech [enjoyed by bodies representing the staff], the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by [such] bodies [...]. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message."

    Keywords:

    bias; breach; collective rights; condition; facilities; flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; refusal; right; staff representative; staff union;



  • Judgment 3130


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; claim; compensation; complaint allowed in part; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; international civil servant; material damages; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3120


    113th Session, 2012
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 & 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; international civil servant; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3115


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; international civil servant; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; complaint allowed in part; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 3102


    112th Session, 2012
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; international civil servant; misconduct; procedure; promotion; right;



  • Judgment 3090


    112th Session, 2012
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal may rule on any employment relationship arising between an organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. (See Judgment 1272, under 9.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; duration of appointment; international civil servant; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; termination; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 3074


    112th Session, 2012
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15 & 16

    Extract:

    "[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
    [M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986

    Keywords:

    acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; contract; date; exception; international civil servant; limits; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 3070


    112th Session, 2012
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.07.2019 ^ top