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

Formal requirements (78,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Formal requirements
Total judgments found: 97

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >

  • Judgment 4051


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal repeats its case law that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder, if necessary and ďthat those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the [Tribunalís] Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainantís pleas [and that] such references are acceptable only as illustrationsĒ (see, for example, Judgment 3434, under 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements;



  • Judgment 3947


    125th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [P]aragraph 8 of [Instruction] IN/217 does not mandate notification to be in writing. The notification of the termination decision may have taken any form which informed the complainant of the subject decision (see Judgment 3505, consideration 8, and the judgments cited therein). Having been verbally notified of the termination decision on 1 March 2015, the complainantís deadline for sending a request for review was 30 April 2015.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505

    Keywords:

    decision; formal requirements; judicial review;



  • Judgment 3935


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant accuses his former supervisor of moral harassment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    UNESCO submits that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds of its lack of intelligibility. [...] The Tribunal agrees with the Organization that both the structure and the drafting of the complainantís submissions might have been clearer. However, the complaint is sufficiently intelligible to enable the other party to identify its essential purpose and the main pleas on which the complainant relies. The content of UNESCOís reply demonstrates, moreover, that it was able to understand fully the complainantís claims and pleas.
    Following the practice it has developed through its case law dealing with this issue, the Tribunal will hence dismiss this objection to receivability (see, for example, Judgments 3298, under 16, or 3616, under 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298, 3616

    Keywords:

    formal requirements; legal brief; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3920


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, and recently with increasing frequency, that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 4, and 3434, consideration 5). In this matter, the Tribunal will only have regard to pleas in the complainantís brief and rejoinder and will disregard any additional, supplementary or other pleas in the Statement of Appeal before the HBA.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434, 3692, 3842

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements;



  • Judgment 3432


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainantís brief (without annexures) in the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises three pages. It is, at times, expressed in inappropriately colourful language. The brief effectively adopts the documented argument of the complainant in the internal appeal (a practice the Tribunal does not approve of) [...].

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements; procedure; submissions;



  • Judgment 3225


    115th Session, 2013
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully asks for her short-term contracts to be converted into fixed-term contracts.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complaint form was filed within the time limit specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, albeit without the brief and supporting evidence which, according to Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal, had to be appended to it. Contrary to [the defendant]ís submissions, this does not signify that the complaint was submitted out of time, since paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article affords the complainant the possibility of correcting a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the Rules. In the instant case, the complaint was corrected on 30 March 2011, within the time limit set by the Registrar of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal; Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    complaint; complaint allowed in part; correction of complaint; date; formal requirements; iloat statute; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3204


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims moral damages for the Unionís failure to submit to its Council the matter of the recognition of same-sex marriages.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "It is settled by the Tribunalís case law that, according to the rules of good faith, anyone who was a staff member of an organisation and to whom a promise was made, may expect that promise to be kept by the organisation. However, the right to fulfilment of the promise is conditional. One condition is that the promise should be substantive. Another is that the promise is from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it. Yet another is that the breach should cause injury to the person who relies on the promise (see Judgment 782)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 782

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; formal requirements; good faith; organisation's duties; promise; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 3191


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "Regarding the contents of the vacancy notice, the confusion, to the extent there was some confusion among potential applicants, involved confusion about the interpretation of the Service Regulations and not the interpretation of the content of the vacancy notice itself. However, in these circumstances, where the EPO was aware of the confusion surrounding the interpretation of its Regulations, it was incumbent on the Administration to clarify the requirements for the position in the vacancy notice."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; formal requirements; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; vacancy; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 3127


    113th Session, 2012
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal requirements; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 3120


    113th Session, 2012
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 & 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisationís duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individualís right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff memberís right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisationís duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; international civil servant; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3116


    113th Session, 2012
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted his complaint by sending a scanned complaint form to the Tribunal via an e-mail of 11 May 2010, with only sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 filled in. One of the essential sections, section 4, had been left blank. He submitted a completed version of the form on 18 May 2010.
    "It should be recalled that Article 6(1)(a) of the Rules of the Tribunal sets out the requirements of form for filing a complaint: the complainant should fill in and sign the complaint form prescribed in the Schedule of those Rules. The complainantís requests to the Tribunal that he be allowed to correct retroactively the incomplete initial complaint form, sent on 11 May 2010, and consequently that the completed revision of it, sent on 18 May, be accepted as having been filed on 11 May, are denied. Indeed, the entries in the initial complaint form did not suffice to identify the relief the complainant was claiming. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of form set out in Article 6(1) was not met and the complaint could not be registered as filed on 11 May 2010. Moreover, this case does not fall within the purview of the thirty-day time limit prescribed by Article 6(2) of the Rules for correction of complaints. [...] Consequently, the document filed on [11 May 2010] cannot be considered a complaint, as it did not contain the claims which are essential elements of a complaint. The complaint form, properly filled in, was filed on 18 May 2010, i.e. six days after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint must be considered irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Articles 6(1) and 6(2) of the Rules

    Keywords:

    complaint form; correction of complaint; formal requirements; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3033


    111th Session, 2011
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[A]ny decision to terminate an employee's contract must be clear and precise and must comply with the applicable formal requirements. Moreover, like any decision unfavourable to an official, it cannot take effect before the date on which he or she is notified of it (see Judgment 1531, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1531

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date of notification; decision; effect; formal requirements; organisation's duties; termination;



  • Judgment 3032


    111th Session, 2011
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; international civil servant; organisation's duties; procedure; right of appeal; safeguard; vacancy;



  • Judgment 2991


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

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil servant; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 2978


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when [...] the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision (see Judgments 1787, under 5, and 2035, under 4). These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 1590, under 7, and 2194, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1787, 2035, 2194

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; date of notification; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; grounds; same;



  • 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; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;



  • Judgment 2922


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he procedure leading to titularisation was never undertaken in the case of the complainant. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the complainant did not have the status of an established official within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the [ILO] Staff Regulations. It follows that she is not justified in claiming that there has been a violation of the formal and procedural rules applicable to the termination of the appointment of an established official [...]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 2.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    breach; confirmation of appointment; formal flaw; formal requirements; procedural flaw; procedure; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination; written rule;



  • Judgment 2921


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In addition to the absence of a closing date, the vacancy notice contained no information regarding the main duties of the position, the required qualifications, or an invitation to interested applicants to apply. This is the same issue that arose in Judgment 2920 [...]. In that judgment, the Tribunal observed: 'The underlying rationale for the publication of the vacancy notice is to permit qualified staff members to make an informed decision as to whether they should submit an application to be considered for the vacant post and to foster a policy consistent with [...] the Service Regulations. Although there are no set content requirements for a vacancy notice, it cannot be said that the notice [...] in the present case provided even the minimum information that a staff member would require to reach an informed decision.' "

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2920

    Keywords:

    formal requirements; organisation's duties; publication; staff member's interest; vacancy; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 2920


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The underlying rationale for the publication of the vacancy notice is to permit qualified staff members to make an informed decision as to whether they should submit an application to be considered for the vacant post and to foster a policy consistent with [...] the Service Regulations. Although there are no set content requirements for a vacancy notice, it cannot be said that the notice [...] in the present case provided even the minimum information that a staff member would require to reach an informed decision."

    Keywords:

    formal requirements; organisation's duties; publication; staff member's interest; vacancy; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 2917


    109th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The signing of a document with such important implications for the future career of a staff member is not a mere formality, and insistence on absolute compliance with this rule cannot be dismissed as an unduly formalistic approach. The provision requiring that the appraisal form be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by other persons [...] is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member's skills and performance."

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; formal flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top