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

Organisation (71, 73, 74, 673,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Organisation
Total judgments found: 212

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

  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; decision; international civil servant; organisation; receivability of the complaint; termination;



  • Judgment 3240


    115th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "It is a well-established principle governing probation that in addition to “[identifying] in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken”, an organisation must also “give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy” (see Judgment 2788, under 1)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2788

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confirmation of appointment; organisation; organisation's duties; probation; purpose; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3086


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

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The European Patent Office paid the full amount of the costs occasioned by the complainant's move from Germany to France after he retired. The complainant emphasises that the removal firm did not do its work properly and caused him material injury. In his opinion, the EPO has incurred liability, particularly because it had urged him to place the move in the hands of that firm.
    "[W]hen an international organisation defrays the removal expenses of an official or former official, it does not follow that it becomes a party to the contract between the person concerned and the removal firm. Neither of the parties to this private law contract acts on behalf of the organisation. For the latter, the contract is res inter alios. This is all the more understandable given that it has no means of ascertaining whether the contract has been performed satisfactorily or, if necessary, of establishing the damage resulting from faulty performance."

    Keywords:

    contract; liability; material injury; organisation; payment; procedural flaw; removal expenses; retirement;



  • Judgment 3080


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

    Considerations 19 & 20

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, when an organisation is ordered to grant a financial benefit to a staff member who fulfilled the legal requirements for claiming it, but who failed to do so as soon as his/her entitlement arose, the benefit in question is due only as from the date of the initial claim by the person concerned, and not the date on which he/she became entitled to the benefit ([...] see Judgment 2550, under 6, or Judgment 2860, under 22). There would be no justification for ordering an organisation unexpectedly to pay potentially large, backdated, aggregated sums for benefits which had not been claimed by the staff member concerned when he or she should have done so. [...] [Moreover] it is true that the position would be different if the Organization itself were responsible for the fact that the [staff member] did not submit a claim [at that time]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2550, 2860

    Keywords:

    amount; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; date; delay; exception; insurance benefit; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 3064


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 & 11

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
    "The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; complaint allowed; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;



  • Judgment 3046


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

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;



  • Judgment 3043


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3038


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

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    Failure of the parties to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owed to the complainant for the termination of his appointment following a flawed reassignment procedure.
    "The Tribunal finds that the inordinate delay on the part of the Organization, and its conduct during the negotiations, do not reflect the duty that is incumbent on an organisation to negotiate in good faith, or the care it should take in the implementation of a decision. These matters warrant an award of moral damages."

    Keywords:

    compensation; conduct; delay; duty of care; good faith; moral damages; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3020


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

    Consideration 6

    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. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11

    Keywords:

    allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; international civil servant; marital status; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It does not lie within the Tribunal's competence, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to examine whether the practice followed by the Genevan tax authorities [...] was compatible with the provisions on the exemption enjoyed in principle by the complainant as a[n] official employed by an international organisation which has concluded a headquarters agreement with Switzerland [...]."

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; domestic law; exception; headquarters agreement; iloat statute; international civil servant; limits; organisation; status of complainant; tax; written rule;



  • Judgment 3019


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Automatic coverage of spouses under the Organisation's long-term health insurance / Obligation to file a waiver declaration.
    "The automatic coverage applied by the Implementing Rules cannot be deemed unreasonable. It is clear that under the system chosen by the Organisation some staff members may be slightly financially penalised if they fail to opt out of the scheme, as their automatic coverage will entail consequent deductions from their salaries. However, in evaluating the possible outcome resulting from automatic coverage and that resulting from a lack of coverage, the Organisation evidently considered that the outcome could be worse in the latter situation as staff members who neglected to enrol their spouses in the long-term care insurance scheme could suffer the severe financial consequences of not being insured when the need arose, and the Tribunal cannot regard the Organisation's choice as unreasonable."

    Keywords:

    deduction; insurance; insurance benefit; organisation; practice; salary; social benefit;



  • Judgment 3003


    111th Session, 2011
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82

    Keywords:

    acceptance; advisory opinion; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2993


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "It may well be that where an organisation conceals the existence of a cause of action, time will run only from such time as the cause of action is discovered."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; right of appeal; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 2992


    110th Session, 2011
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The CDE requests that certain documents be removed from the file on the grounds that they are confidential and that the complainant obtained them unlawfully.
    "The Tribunal will not accede to the request for the removal of items of evidence, since the Centre has not proved that this request is justified by the protection of interests more worthy of protection that the complainant's interest in defending herself (see Judgment 2700, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; discontinuance; flaw; lack of evidence; organisation; organisation's interest; refusal; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2972


    110th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Once it is accepted that an organisation has a right to assign new or different shift work patterns, it follows that a particular shift work pattern cannot constitute an acquired right."

    Keywords:

    acquired right; assignment; organisation; reorganisation; right; working conditions; working hours;



  • Judgment 2962


    110th Session, 2011
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Organization asks the Tribunal to 'delete' certain passages from the complaint, as in its view they have no bearing on this dispute. The Tribunal will not grant this request, because complainants are free to present any argument that they consider relevant to their case, provided that they do not use terms or a tone overstepping the bounds of what is permissible in judicial proceedings."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; condition; discontinuance; limits; organisation; refusal;



  • Judgment 2907


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

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156

    Keywords:

    budgetary reasons; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; due process; implied decision; international civil servant; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;



  • Judgment 2906


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "The various paths to promotion within an international organisation such as the EPO are regulated by complex rules with which the staff cannot be assumed to be fully conversant and it is plainly up to the Organisation to ensure that the decisions which it takes in this respect are lawful."

    Keywords:

    organisation; organisation's duties; procedure; promotion; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2899


    108th Session, 2010
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849

    Keywords:

    case law; cause; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; international civil servant; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2865


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(b)

    Extract:

    Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
    "An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
    a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
    b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
    "The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; international civil servant; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;



  • Judgment 2792


    106th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "Having launched an internal appeal, a staff member is entitled to know whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed. The fact that certain aspects of the relief sought may have become moot does not absolve the head of an organisation from making a determination on the merits of the appeal."

    Keywords:

    compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; executive head; internal appeal; international civil servant; no cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; right;

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


 
Last updated: 19.11.2019 ^ top