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

Non official (705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 889,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Non official
Total judgments found: 37

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4045


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who had worked at the EPO as a consultant, asks the Tribunal to confirm that he was employed under the conditions applicable to permanent employees or, alternatively, to auxiliary staff.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non official; ratione personae;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complaint will be dismissed. The foregoing shows that the complainant was an independent contractor employed by the private company to provide the subject services to the EPO. He had no employment connection with the EPO deriving from a contract of employment or from the status of a permanent employee (see Judgment 2649, under 8). He was not an EPO employee or an auxiliary staff member. His employment relationship was with the private company. He never belonged to the category of employees to whom the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the Office or the Conditions of Employment for Auxiliary Staff applied. There are therefore no similarities between his employment relationships with the EPO which would bring him within the principles stated in Judgment 3090, considerations 4 to 7, for example. In that judgment, the Tribunal held that it had competence, under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to hear the complaint of a person who had been employed under successive short-term contracts for seven years with the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2649, 3090

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae;



  • Judgment 3938


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;

    Considerations 11 and 12

    Extract:

    [The Organization] advised the complainant that [...] the [host State] authorities [...] would not issue her an entry visa [...].
    As the complainant’s appointment was conditional on her obtaining a work visa, her appointment was not confirmed. It follows that as she was not a UNESCO official, her complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 3705


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a re-characterisation of her employment relationship with WIPO.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    As the complainant cannot be considered an official, she does not have access to the Tribunal (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), 3049, under 4, and 3550, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 3049, 3550

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; non official; official;



  • Judgment 3653


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    There is [...] no provision under which the Tribunal is competent to hear the claim concerning the complainant’s non-selection for the post [...]. As he was not selected for the post, he did not become a WFP staff member from that application and therefore obtained no right to lodge an internal appeal under Staff Regulation 301.11.1 to challenge the non-selection. Because of his non-selection, he had not entered into a contractual relationship with the WFP. Accordingly, by virtue of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute, he has no standing to bring a claim before the Tribunal alleging the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. This position was explained in Judgment 1509, consideration 16 [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3648


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In its surrejoinder WIPO submits, for the first time since this dispute began, that the complainant did not fulfil one of the conditions of the vacancy announcement published on 18 May 2011, namely, that candidates should have “[a]t least 15 years’ experience in technical cooperation or external relations”. It infers from this that the complainant, who was therefore not eligible for the post advertised, has no cause of action to challenge the outcome of the disputed selection procedure and that her complaint is hence irreceivable.

    Keywords:

    non official;



  • Judgment 3551


    120th Session, 2015
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. The complainant stated in the complaint form that he filed the complaint in his capacity as a former official. However, according the express terms of the SSA under which he was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, he has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 1034, under 3, and 3049, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1034, 3049

    Keywords:

    competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; special service agreement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3549


    120th Session, 2015
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. At no point in time did the complainant have the status of an official of the ICC. As the Tribunal has often recalled in its case law, external candidates for employment and persons who have not concluded a contract of employment with an organisation that has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not within the latter’s jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 803, under 3, 1554, under 10, 1964, under 4, and 3382, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 803, 1554, 1964, 3382

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae;



  • Judgment 3542


    120th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the Tribunal cannot hear complaints relating to recruitment procedures for external candidates, the complaint is dismissed.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "A steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal may not hear complaints challenging a decision to reject the candidature of an external applicant for a post in an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2657, under 3). This case law must apply here by analogy, since the complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding recruitment procedures within two administrative entities which are clearly identified as being separate, though they belong to the same international organisation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2657

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3468


    119th Session, 2015
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, it is irreceivable and is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[I]t is clear that these issues concerned the application of a policy to the complainant while he was seeking consultancy work with the FAO but when he was no longer an official of the Organization. The policy had no practical or legal application to the complainant when he was an official of the FAO. Accordingly the issues sought to be raised by the complainant in his internal appeal and before the Tribunal are not issues concerning the non-observance of the terms of his appointment as an official of the FAO or of the application of the Staff Regulations applicable to him during his period of employment with that Organization. The complainant’s challenge is made as a potential consultant rather than as a former official. Consequently, his complaint is based on his status as a potential consultant. Having regard to Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint does not raise issues over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; former official; non official; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3459


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that it was not competent to hear the complaint and summarily dismissed it.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he fundamental difficulty for the complainant in pursuing her complaint in this Tribunal is that she was not, at the time of the impugned decision, an “official” of the EPO for the purposes of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute having regard to the way that concept of “official” has been established and entrenched in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The complainant does not (and on her account of the facts probably could not) point to any contract under or by which she was appointed an official of the EPO. Her employment (in the loosest sense of the word) or engagement to work at the EPO was through a third party, a private company. Accordingly, her complaint is not one the Tribunal is competent to hear."

    Keywords:

    external collaborator; non official; ratione personae;



  • Judgment 3448


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[The complainant] shows no evidence that he had entered into a contract of employment with the ILO for the period 1993 to 2002, as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgments 817, under 8, and 2926, under 7-9). During that period he was employed by a firm which the ILO had sub-contracted. It is a contract with the ILO concluded in accordance with the rules in force which conferred on him the status of an official bound to the Organization during the period from 2002 to 30 April 2010 (see Judgment 2926, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 817, 2926

    Keywords:

    non official; ratione personae; subcontractant;



  • Judgment 3383


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant has never been an official of CERN and did not impugn a decision affecting his rights, his complaint is summarily dismissed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3382


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3381


    118th Session, 2014
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint was summarily dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "As there was no meeting of minds between the parties concerning an appointment and the complainant did not become a staff member of IOM and, therefore, not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint is clearly irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    appointment; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3247


    116th Session, 2014
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "In a case such as the present, jurisdiction is limited and defined by organisations submitting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the complainant being an official (or former official) of an organisation that has so submitted (see Judgments 2503, consideration 4, and 3049, consideration 4). The complainant was not an official of the Global Fund at any relevant time. She was an official of UNOPS, which has not submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the complainant’s complaint save for determining whether it has jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore not receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2503, 3049

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3112


    113th Session, 2012
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non official; status of complainant;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
    "As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;



  • Judgment 3051


    112th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-9

    Extract:

    Given that Mr B. did not have a direct contractual relationship with the EPO, the contract under which he performed his services was between a consultancy firm and the EPO, and as he was paid for his services by that firm and not the Office, it is clear that he was not in an employment relationship with the EPO. However, the question remains whether Mr B. was a de facto employee as the complainants allege.
    With regard to his alleged integration into the Office infrastructure, although the EPO provides him with a user ID, access to the Office computer system, a listing in the internal telephone directory and an office with his name on the door and although he works under the supervision of an EPO manager, it is not disputed that his listing in the internal telephone directory and his user ID clearly indicate that he is not an employee. Nor do the complainants challenge the Internal Appeals Committee’s finding that it is standard practice to give external staff such technical and organisational support as is necessary to permit them to do the work for which they are retained.
    Of particular significance is the fact that during the material time, Mr B. also worked as a consultant for several other agencies and corporations. As well, between 2000 and 2005, he averaged only 70 work days per year at the Office and in only one of those years did he slightly exceed 100 work days in contrast with the 220 work days minus annual leave and public holidays for an EPO employee. Lastly, the contracts under which Mr B.’s services were provided to the EPO specified that they were governed by German law.
    Having regard to these factors, it cannot be said that Mr B. was in any sense an employee of the EPO and it follows that the Service Regulations have no application to him. Accordingly, the Staff Committee’s claimed right under the Service Regulations is not engaged. As under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the competence of the Tribunal is limited to “complaints alleging nonobservance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”, the present complaints are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    non official;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; non official; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3049


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to complaints filed by individuals who do not have the status of an official in the defendant organisations.
    "The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, '[t]he 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 of any [...] international organization meeting the standards set out in the Annex hereto which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration recognizing, in accordance with its Constitution or internal administrative rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official of [the Organization] and is not covered by [the latter's] Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, in particular the provisions governing the internal appeal process, she has no access to this Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence; competence of tribunal; iloat; iloat statute; non official; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2926


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 9

    Extract:

    The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
    "The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;



  • Judgment 2903


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 to 11

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
    "The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
    "In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
    "Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2020 ^ top