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

Stare decisis (856,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Stare decisis
Total judgments found: 3

  • Judgment 4498


    134th Session, 2022
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observes that Judgment 3876 has no “res judicata” authority in the present case, since the force and effect of “res judicata” can only be attributed to a judgment rendered between the same parties, and this is not the case here. The applicable approach is stare decisis.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876

    Keywords:

    precedent; res judicata; stare decisis;



  • Judgment 4134


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 39

    Extract:

    In relation to the relevance of practice, the complainants say practice is not legally binding if it contravenes a written rule that is already in force. This principle is well established in the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 3883, consideration 20). However, the ILO argues this principle concerns only the relationship between written rules and practice in the confined context of the legal relationship between staff and an organization. While this latter point is correct, the principle is a manifestation of a more fundamental requirement, namely the creation of stability, predictability and certainty. This matter was recently discussed by the Tribunal in the context of the operation of the principle of stare decisis in Judgment 3450. The Tribunal observed in consideration 8, that it is important for the law to be stable, predictable and certain and the principle of stare decisis “[...] serves a much more fundamental and important purpose of creating consistency and predictability in a legal system”. The Tribunal observed that principles and interpretations of the Tribunal in earlier judgments should be followed “in order to create a stable, predictable and certain legal system concerning the rights and obligations of both staff and organizations”. To accept the contention of the ILO concerning the legal effect of practice is to invite instability, unpredictability and uncertainty and must be rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3450, 3883

    Keywords:

    practice; stare decisis;



  • Judgment 3450


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal made a judicial determination of what the provision meant and its decision was not mere guidance. The ILO has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as the final and judicial arbiter of employee grievances. The only reservation in the Tribunal’s Statute concerns the Tribunal’s jurisdiction which is reviewable by the International Court of Justice. This submission to jurisdiction binds the organisation, its officials and internal organs.
    Judgment 2220 discusses, albeit briefly, the rule of stare decisis. It is to the effect that as a matter of judicial practice or of comity, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that “the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who are not party thereto” unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied. Another element of the stare decisis rule entrenched in many legal systems is that courts lower in the judicial hierarchy are obliged to follow legal principles (including the interpretation of documents) established by appellate courts higher in the judicial hierarchy. This principle does not exist to create the appearance of deference to more senior members of the judiciary. Rather it serves a much more fundamental and important purpose of creating consistency and predictability in a legal system. Even though a judge or judges lower in the judicial hierarchy may believe that a principle established or an interpretation given by judges in an appellate court higher in the judicial hierarchy is wrong or perhaps even patently wrong, they are obliged to, and do, apply the principle or interpretation. Parties should be able to make informed decisions about their legal rights and about whether they should commence or defend legal proceedings. Thus it is important for the law to be stable, predictable and certain.
    It is for this reason that the Tribunal has adopted the rule of stare decisis in relation to its own decision making. Internal appeal organs and senior decision-making officials are, of course, neither courts nor judges. However, it is for the same reasons discussed above that internal organs should follow and apply principles established by the Tribunal and adopt and apply interpretations by the Tribunal of normative legal documents applicable to the staff of the organisation. That is necessary in order to create a stable, predictable and certain legal system concerning the rights and obligations of both staff and organisations. If organisations and their internal organs feel unconstrained by decisions of the Tribunal, the result is likely to be legal instability and uncertainty. Also, as a practical matter, if a different position is adopted by the organisation or its internal organs and the Tribunal reverses the decision embodying that different approach, significant costs, both financial and in resources, are likely to have been expended in defending that different approach for no apparent good purpose. Organisations and their internal organs should follow the interpretation of normative legal documents decided by the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2220

    Keywords:

    precedent; stare decisis;


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top