Non official (705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 760, 889,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Non official
Total judgments found: 42
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
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acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;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;
Judgment 2503
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The evidence on file shows that the complainant was never an official of Eurocontrol, and the only contracts he has produced are temporary contracts signed with a temporary employment agency [which supplied him to the defendant] and governed by French law. According to Article II of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials or such provisions of the Staff Regulations as are applicable to their case. Since the complainant is not an official of Eurocontrol, and cannot produce any employment contract signed with the latter, it follows, as the Agency rightly contends, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; contract; domestic law; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; successive contracts;
Judgment 1964
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; locus standi; medical examination; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 1509
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that UNIDO was administering the [joint UN and UNIDO service in which the complainant was working] made neither the complainant one of its officials nor the organization a party to the contract of employment. According to his letters of appointment the complainant was subject to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of the United Nations, not of UNIDO. And even if in administering the service UNIDO did apply its own Staff Regulations to the complainant he did not on that account become a member of its staff. So any complaint by him that UNDO failed to apply, or misapplied, its Staff Regulations to him is not within the Tribunal's competence."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
applicable law; competence of tribunal; contract; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; official; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 1337
77th Session, 1994
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The special service agreement that the complainant signed stated that it was between him and the United Nations. The fact that it provided for services to [subsidiary bodies of the FAO] does not make either of those bodies or the FAO itself a party to the contract or liable thereunder. The conclusion is that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the case."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; coordinated organisations; non official; organisation; unat;
Judgment 1302
76th Session, 1994
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant submits but the organisation denies that he had the status of an ESO official. "The fact of the matter is that [a private company] employed him on its own behalf, not as an agent of the ESO. Since he is wrong in contending that the ESO was his employer the Tribunal is not competent to entertain his complaint, and it must fail."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; locus standi; non official; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 1285
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The World Food Program is "a joint endeavour of the United Nations and the FAO. Although in some circumstances an agreement signed by the WFP might have bound the organization, in this case every special service agreement that the complainant signed stated that it was between him and the United Nations. [...] The conclusion is that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the case."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; coordinated organisations; non official; organisation; unat;
Judgment 1260
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant wants the Tribunal to order the removal of a mention in his file after he turned down the offer of a post which allegedly puts an "obstacle" on his name to get jobs from the organization. The organization contends that it has not had any contractual ties with the complainant since a short contract it gave him some time ago, and it points out that his present claims have no bearing on that contract. "The Tribunal's competence is restricted under Article II(5) of its Statute to hearing complaints alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of an official or of provisions of the organisation's Staff Regulations. The complaint fails because the Tribunal lacks competence to entertain it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II(5) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; personal file; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1033
69th Session, 1990
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under Article 24 of the Paris Convention of 1961, as amended, UPOV has legal personality of its own and the administrative arrangements provided for in its Agreement with WIPO do not impair its distinct identity. The reasons why the complainant may not appeal are that even though the WIPO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules apply to him as an employee of UPOV he is not an official of WIPO, and the organisation that does employ him has not recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Article II(5).
Keywords:
non official;
Judgment 655
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
In accordance with Article II of its Statute, "the Tribunal may not hear a claim to compensation for an accident which occurred while the complainant was with the United Nations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; non official;
Judgment 449
46th Session, 1981
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complaint was filed against an organisation which has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction but never employed the complainant as a member of its staff. Nor does the complainant allege having acceded to any of the rights of one of its officials. The complaint is summarily dismissed.
Keywords:
locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 433
45th Session, 1980
Latin American Institute for Educational Communication
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Institute which formerly employed the complainant was founded with support from UNESCO. It does not recognise the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Institute cannot thus be considered part of UNESCO, which has done no more than lend it financial support and co-operation in its work. The Tribunal will not hear any complaint filed against the Institute. The complaint is likewise irreceivable insofar as it is brought against UNESCO.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; vested competence;
Judgment 231
32nd Session, 1974
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant was seconded by NORAD to GATT, an organisation which has recognised the competence of the Tribunal. He did not conclude a contract of appointment with GATT and was not subject to its Staff Regulations. His contract merely stated that he was subject to the latter organisation's working conditions.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; locus standi; non official; right of appeal; secondment; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 171
25th Session, 1970
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complaint, filed by a former official of IAEA and FAO, is directed against the ILO, an organisation in which he has never served. "Such a complaint is not one which the Administrative Tribunal is competent to hear under the provisions of article ii of its sSatute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 117
19th Session, 1968
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
If the signatory to the contract of employment had authority from the organization, the complainant could be held to be employed by the organization. "Authority is a clear and precise legal conception and if it cannot be found to exist it is not permissible to take refuge in imprecise expressions, such as that the credit union [which employs the complainant] was a body "within the framework of [the organization]". Accordingly, the complainant not being employed by [the organization], and so not one of its staff members, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; delegated authority; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;
Judgment 75
12th Session, 1964
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant's status must be regarded as purely contractual. "It is of little account that the [...] contract describes the complainant as a medical officer. This title relates solely to the nature of the work to be performed by the complainant, but does not affect his legal status. On the contrary, his legal status is defined [in the contract] which stipulates that "the present contract does not confer upon the holder the title of official of the [...] organization." [The Tribunal is not competent].
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
