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

Ratione materiae (701,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Ratione materiae
Total judgments found: 20

  • 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 complainantís appointment and/or of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunalís 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; 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; 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 Directorís rejection of the complainantís 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 Tribunalís 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:
    ďWho took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunalís 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.Ē

    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 Tribunalís 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:
    ďWho took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunalís 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.Ē

    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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís 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:
    ďWho took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunalís 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.Ē

    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 Tribunalís 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 FAOís decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunalís 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;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Additionally, the complainantís 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, 6, 7, 8

    Extract:

    [C]entrally underpinning the complaint is what is characterised as a decision of 14 January 2016. Necessarily, to invoke the Tribunalís 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 complainantís terms of appointment. The complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunalís 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 ďegregious and irregular treatmentĒ 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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís 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 complainantís rights. There was not, in this respect, an administrative decision determining or resolving the complainantís 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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís Statute relevantly provides that the Tribunal shall be competent ďto hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff RegulationsĒ. 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 ICCís contention about receivability are the provisions of Article II of the Tribunalís Statute. Those provisions define, establish and limit the Tribunalís jurisdiction. The ICCís contention is receivable, notwithstanding that no point has been raised before and within the internal consideration of the complainantís 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 Tribunalís 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 ICCís 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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís competence, organisations recognising the Tribunalís 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 Tribunalís 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 complainantís submissions is devoted to challenging certain modifications to the EPOís internal appeal procedure which were introduced in 2013. In his claims for relief, he specifically asks the Tribunal to ďclarify some points of the procedure of the Internal Appeals CommitteeĒ. 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;



  • Judgment 3345


    118th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as elected staff representatives, in their individual capacities as staff members and on behalf of thirty-six staff members employed under ďlong-term short-term contractsĒ, challenge the appropriateness of employment under such contracts and claim certain rights for such employees.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[T]he claims of the Staff Council were a request for a change of policy and policy issues of this type are not justiciable (see Judgment 3225, consideration 6). This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the request was made at a high level of abstraction."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225

    Keywords:

    ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3020


    111th Session, 2011
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax.
    "[T]here is no need to entertain the claim that the WTO should be ordered to 'employ its authority and power' to persuade the competent Swiss authorities to abandon the practice giving rise to this dispute, since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue such an order."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; domestic law; marital status; order; ratione materiae; tax;



  • Judgment .17


    Sessions of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, 1946
    League of Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment .15


    Sessions of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, 1946
    Nansen International Office for Refugees
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    arbitration; equity; interpretation; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment .02


    Sessions of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, 1946
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment .01


    Sessions of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, 1946
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; ratione materiae;


 
Last updated: 07.11.2019 ^ top