|
|
 |
|
|
Ratione materiae (701, 844,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Ratione materiae
Total judgments found: 28
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4707
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the modifications brought to the subsistence allowance.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
CERN does not contest that the complainant has personal standing to maintain his complaint. It accepts that the complainant has standing “before the Tribunal in respect of administrative decisions adversely affecting [his] conditions of association” and it refers to Judgment 1166. However, what it does contest concerns the subject matter of the complaint as it is “not related to the Complainant’s conditions of association deriving from his contract or from” the Staff Rules and Regulations (SRR). Part of CERN’s argument in its reply is that payment of subsistence allowances which are the subject of the ceiling, do not derive from the SRR or an appealable decision of the Director-General of CERN (appealable under Article S VI 1.01 of the SRR), but rather are decided upon by an external entity as the employer of the MPA concerned. The pleas on this topic continue in the rejoinder, surrejoinder, further submissions of the complainant and final comments by CERN. Part of the responsive argument of the complainant is that CERN had not provided any proof that the payments of the subsistence allowance of the complainant had been “decided upon by an external entity”.
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, generally, a party making an allegation bears the burden of proving it (unless, of course, it is not contested). This approach has relevance in cases where a defendant organization challenges the receivability of a complaint and that challenge is based on a fact or facts bearing upon receivability. Cases have arisen where such challenges have failed because the defendant organization has not proved a fact underpinning the contention that the complaint was not receivable (see, for example, Judgments 3034, consideration 13, and 2494, consideration 4). If a distinction is drawn between the general arrangement whereby CERN made payments on behalf of third parties which is principally a matter of process, and an alteration, particularly a material one, to the amount of any such payment based on a decision of the third party communicated to CERN then proof of that decision may be required to sustain the objection to receivability of the type advanced by CERN. It is not at all obvious, even implicitly, from the material relied upon by CERN that the alteration, by way of reduction, of the subsistence allowance commencing in 2020 payable to the complainant, was ever considered by the complainant’s Home Institution, an American university. The absence of evidence leaves open the possibility that, as a matter of fact, the reduction in the payment of the subsistence allowance to the complainant was a direct result of the implementation of the general decision to place a ceiling of ordinarily 5,163 Swiss francs on subsistence payments which did not involve any decision-making or instructions by or from the complainant’s Home Institution. But it is unnecessary to explore this issue any further as, for reasons which follow, the complaint should be dismissed on its merits.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2494, 3034
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4603
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment on account of his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
To the extent that the complainant raises questions concerning human rights violations allegedly committed by the Austrian authorities and matters relating to his family circumstances, those questions relate to private rather than work-related matters and are not concerned with the non-observance of the complainant’s terms of appointment. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are not within the competence of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; host state; private life; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4458
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the setting aside of the information circular which, according to her, announced the closure of the UNESCO Commissary.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he contested measure affects the complainant not in her capacity as a former official of UNESCO, but in her – legally distinct – capacity as a member of the Commissary. The complainant herself makes this clear in her complaint by submitting that the decision to end the Commissary’s activity “directly breaches [her] entitlements as a member of the Commissary”, and the nature of the arguments raised in her submissions confirms that she intends to file a complaint with the Tribunal in that capacity.
However, the opportunity to use the services of the Commissary, which was merely a facility offered to UNESCO staff members – and indeed to other categories of persons [...] – was not covered by the provisions of the complainant’s employment contract when she retired nor by the provisions of the Organization’s Staff Regulations [...].
Keywords:
competence; facilities; locus standi; ratione materiae; status of complainant;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; facilities; general decision; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4432
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to accept only part of the recommendations of the Appeals Committee on his appeal against the postponement of a strike ballot by the President of the European Patent Office.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to address alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of a member of the staff of an international organisation or the non-observance of the Staff Regulations “as are applicable to the case” (Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute). If non-observance of a Staff Regulation (or other applicable normative legal document) is conceded before the proceedings in the Tribunal are commenced (in this case non-observance of paragraph 3 of Circular No. 347), there is no justiciable issue about non-observance for the Tribunal to determine. At least ordinarily, the reasons for the concession are irrelevant to the issue of non-observance.
Keywords:
claim moot; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4241
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] seeks an order that her harasser(s) be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for misconduct. The request is rejected as the imposition of such a measure lies outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3318, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae; relief claimed; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4219
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has recognised that former officials can seek redress in the Tribunal when, inter alia, the former official is seeking to enforce rights which had arisen during the currency of her or his employment with the international organisation concerned (see, for example, Judgments 3505, consideration 3, and 3915, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505, 3915
Keywords:
competence; former official; ratione materiae; ratione personae;
Judgment 4201
128th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Staff Association to reject his application for legal support in connection with a complaint he had filed with the Tribunal.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, at the time when he filed his complaint, the complainant was a former official. Although the Tribunal is open to former officials of international organizations recognising its competence, a complaint filed by a former official must, like any other complaint, invoke non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of the complainant’s appointment and/or of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. In this case, however, the complainant does not allege that any provision of his terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations has been violated.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; ratione materiae; ratione personae;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; ratione materiae; summary procedure;
Judgment 4185
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[M]aking an order that the practice of purchasing the driver uniforms be restored is beyond the competence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 4038, consideration 19) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4038
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4104
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; complaint dismissed; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II [of the Tribunal’s Statute] does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4066
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to promote the complainant to the P-4 grade. However, as the impugned decision will be set aside, the matter will be remitted to the FAO for it to reconsider the decision not to promote her to the P-4 grade in 2013.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; promotion; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant's] purported challenge to the FAO’s decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute because he seeks to challenge a decision which is not concerned with the non-observance of the terms of his appointment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Additionally, the complainant’s request that the FAO hold the officials responsible for the contested decision accountable for their breach of the rules and regulations and for acting in bad faith is rejected, as is his request that the Tribunal order the FAO to issue an official announcement to clear his reputation, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions of this kind (see, for example, Judgment 2636, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4048
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her allegations of institutional harassment.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
[C]entrally underpinning the complaint is what is characterised as a decision of 14 January 2016. Necessarily, to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment. The complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute).
The letter of 10 December 2015, addressed to a Danish Minister, adverted to the allegation of institutional harassment and, in substance, was encouraging the Minister to take the opportunity of distancing himself from what the complainant perceived as a failure within the EPO to investigate the claimed harassment. The Tribunal can readily infer the letter was trying to bring about political pressure coming from the Minister directed to Mr K. The letter of 10 December 2015 did not in terms call upon the Minister to take any steps beyond, possibly, declaring his opposition to the “egregious and irregular treatment” of the complainant. It certainly did not demand or even request the vindication of a right, provision of a benefit or the enforcement of a duty or obligation of the type comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Moreover the responsive letter of 14 January 2016 did not address or concern, in so far as it directly responded to the letter of 10 December 2015, a non-observance of the type arising under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. In addition, it was written by Mr K., to the extent he was responding to the letter of 14 January 2016, in his capacity as Director General of a State government organ. Whatever he said in that capacity could not be treated as conduct of the EPO. Nonetheless, it may be thought that part of the letter should be treated as a response by Mr K. in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Council. However even if it was, it said nothing conclusively or determinedly about the complainant’s rights. There was not, in this respect, an administrative decision determining or resolving the complainant’s legal rights.
The character of the impugned decision in the letter of 24 January 2017, to the extent that it was the endpoint of a chain commencing with the letter of 10 December 2015, is determined by what preceded it. It was not, in this respect, a decision concerning a matter addressed by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4041
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As a former employee, the complainant challenges the decision to ban her from entering the EPO premises without prior authorisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint will be dismissed as the Tribunal has no competence to hear it. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly provides that the Tribunal shall be competent “to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. The present complaint does not fall within the ambit of this provision as it does not allege non-observance of the terms of an appointment which the complainant held with the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4006
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
At the forefront of the ICC’s contention about receivability are the provisions of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. Those provisions define, establish and limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s contention is receivable, notwithstanding that no point has been raised before and within the internal consideration of the complainant’s Complaint about the receivability of the complaint. Plainly enough, the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as established by Article II of its Statute, can only arise at a point when a complainant seeks to invoke that jurisdiction.
Article II is concerned with the vindication and enforcement of individual rights or privileges of staff members of international organisations, conferred either by normative legal documents regulating or governing their employment, or conferred by the terms of their appointment. Similarly, the Article is concerned with the enforcement of obligations or duties of international organisations towards their staff. An overlay on these rights, privileges, duties and obligations is the Tribunal’s case law. These rights or privileges and duties or obligations may attach to individual staff members or a particular class of staff members which, obviously enough, can, and often does, include all staff members. This description of the scope of Article II can be expressed in a variety of ways. But this description captures the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by Article II. There are many judgments of the Tribunal that address this question including, recently, Judgments 3526, consideration 5, 3642, consideration 11, and 3760, consideration 6.
Articles 46 and 47 of the Rome Statute together with the implementing Rules in the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, are not intended to confer on members of staff, and do not do so, a particular right or privilege for the benefit of staff; nor are they intended to impose, and do not do so, a particular duty or obligation directed to members of staff. Rather, those provisions are intended to benefit the world at large. That is to say, they are provisions intended to preserve the integrity of the ICC as an international court by imposing a standard of conduct on the judges and senior officials of the Court, creating a mechanism for the enforcement of those standards and, additionally, affording anyone with an interest the opportunity to enforce those standards. They are not provisions of a character comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute insofar as they are invoked by staff members other than, potentially, the officials directly affected, such as the Registrar, the Prosecutor or an individual judge. Accordingly, proceedings invoking Articles 46 and 47 alone and seeking their enforcement are not within the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3526, 3642, 3760
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3845
124th Session, 2017
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[A]s the Statute of the Tribunal does not provide for the right to formulate reservations concerning the scope of the Tribunal’s competence, organisations recognising the Tribunal’s jurisdiction accept that all disputes arising between them and their officials may be submitted to the Tribunal.
While it is true that in the letter [...] by which it asked to recognise the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the ACP Group specified that its request pertained to the provisions of Title IX of the Staff Regulations governing disciplinary proceedings, it ensues from the foregoing that such a request could not be approved in that form. Consequently, the acceptance by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office of the request must be understood as intending to empower the Tribunal to hear all disputes between the ACP Group and its officials.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A significant part of the complainant’s submissions is devoted to challenging certain modifications to the EPO’s internal appeal procedure which were introduced in 2013. In his claims for relief, he specifically asks the Tribunal to “clarify some points of the procedure of the Internal Appeals Committee”. The complainant clearly misunderstands the role of the Tribunal. A request for interpretation of a normative text of an organization cannot be formulated as an independent claim before the Tribunal, outside the context of alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official. This claim is therefore clearly irreceivable."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; interpretation; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3441
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]ll of these and other issues which call into question decisions that are made on the basis of the UNJSPF Regulations are irreceivable in the Tribunal as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under UNIDO Staff Regulation 12.2(b).
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; unjspf;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
