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

Settlement out of court (98,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Settlement out of court
Total judgments found: 56

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4091


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    compensation; complaint dismissed; harassment; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 4080


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal is simply astonished that the complainant was invited to sign two proposals for a settlement requiring him to pay sums of money in exchange for the Organisation waiving disciplinary action against him and providing him with protection against any possible criminal action. Such a conduct is inadmissible.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 4043


    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 14

    Extract:

    The preceding analysis should not be viewed as tacit acceptance by the Tribunal that litigation by members of staff against the organisation that employs them is desirable or should be promoted. If grievances can be resolved other than by litigation involving lawyers, that is very much to be preferred (see, for example, the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 3900, consideration 11, and the cases referred to therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3900

    Keywords:

    settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3900


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract owing to the closure of the CDE and the terms and conditions of that termination.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    It must first be emphasised that a steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal encourages the settlement of disputes by agreement (see Judgments 1847, under 11, 1924, under 10, 2091, under 13, and 2220, under 6). As recently stated in Judgment 3731, under 7, ď[i]t is now almost universally recognised that the settlement of legal disputes is, in many cases, a preferable outcome than the full ventilation of legal and factual issues in contested litigation to be resolved by the adjudication of a court of justice. Some cases, by their very nature, will take that path. However, many others are more appropriately resolved by discussion and agreement. The parties control the terms of an agreed outcome even if, as is almost always the case, it involves some reciprocated compromise. There appears to be a regrettable attitude amongst some parties before the Tribunal, both individual complainants and defendant organisations alike, not to entertain the possibility of settlement by agreement. It should be otherwise.Ē

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1847, 1924, 2091, 2220, 3731

    Keywords:

    settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3867


    124th Session, 2017
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the WTOís decision not to conduct an inquiry into his allegations of harassment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; harassment; settlement out of court;

    Considerations 5 and 7

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant submits that the clauses contravene the general principles of law because they have the effect of depriving him of the right to bring a complaint of harassment or abuse of power. However, in the context of a settlement, as is the case here, the infringement of an officialís right to appeal or file a complaint is not unlawful. On the contrary, it is entirely acceptable for an official to waive such rights in return for the benefits gained from the settlement. This is, furthermore, common practice in the context of separation agreements, as here.
    In this respect, the complainantís reliance on Judgment 2715, in which the Tribunal emphasised that an international organisation had acted unlawfully in making payment of a sum due to an official contingent on his relinquishing all means of appeal, is misplaced. In that case, pressure was improperly brought to bear on the official in return for nothing but the organisationís honouring of its own duties. That situation bears no comparison with the case of a clause in a settlement agreement providing for an official to receive benefits negotiated with him.
    [T]he fact that the agreement was concluded for the purpose of determining the conditions of the complainantís separation from service did not legally prevent it from containing, as part of the settlement between the parties, stipulations concerning other aspects of the relations between them.
    In this connection, the Tribunal further observes that in this case it is by no means inappropriate that the separation agreement should have the effect of preventing an inquiry into the facts alleged in the complaints [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715

    Keywords:

    settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3827


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her the lump sum paid to servants whose application to resign is accepted.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant points out that [...] the Organisation had proposed an amicable settlement of the dispute. She regards this proposal as acknowledgement of the unlawful nature of the decision [...].
    This submission is misconceived. The Organisationís proposal to resolve the dispute by means of a settlement, which did not in itself imply any admission of liability, could very well have been prompted by a wish to avoid the trouble of pursuing litigation with an employee who had retired.

    Keywords:

    settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3731


    123rd Session, 2017
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3235.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he observations of the Tribunal about settlement discussions were no more than words of encouragement. They were not intended to create a legal obligation on the OPCW to negotiate or negotiate in a particular way. That said, the Tribunalís observations were made in the expectation that they would be given earnest and serious consideration. It is now almost universally recognised that the settlement of legal disputes is, in many cases, a preferable outcome than the full ventilation of legal and factual issues in contested litigation to be resolved by the adjudication of a court of justice. Some cases, by their very nature, will take that path. However, many others are more appropriately resolved by discussion and agreement. The parties control the terms of an agreed outcome even if, as is almost always the case, it involves some reciprocated compromise. There appears to be a regrettable attitude amongst some parties before the Tribunal, both individual complainants and defendant organisations alike, not to entertain the possibility of settlement by agreement. It should be otherwise.

    Keywords:

    settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3245


    116th Session, 2014
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal considered the complaint irreceivable for non-exhaustion of internal remedies.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3180


    114th Session, 2013
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from a salary adjustment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he fact that the amount of money claimed may be derisory does not prevent the claim from being receivable. [I]f the [Organisation] was of the opinion that the amount at stake in this dispute was derisory, it ought to have tried to put an end to it by reaching an amicable settlement."

    Keywords:

    amount; claim; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3067


    112th Session, 2012
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "[T]he very purpose of a conciliation procedure, which is to endeavour to resolve a dispute between the parties amicably, implies that the conciliator may have to take account of considerations of fairness or advisability. In this respect, such a procedure is fundamentally different from proceedings before the Tribunal, whose task is plainly not to explore possible settlements between the parties and which essentially gives a ruling in law."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; difference; equity; purpose; settlement out of court;



  • 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;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "As the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a negotiated settlement, remitting the matter to [the Organization] to resolve the matter of compensation would be futile and would result in further unwarranted delay in the resolution of the dispute. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will itself determine the relief to which the complainant is entitled [...]."

    Keywords:

    compensation; delay; order; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2940


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

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2888


    108th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has already had occasion to rule that it has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to a contract concluded with an independent contractor or collaborator which contains [...] an arbitration clause (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), and 2688, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 2688

    Keywords:

    arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; definition; external collaborator; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2878


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

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
    "[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841

    Keywords:

    breach; collective bargaining; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 2757


    105th Session, 2008
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "[I]t is a fundamental aspect of due process that a person should not take a decision in a matter in which he or she has a personal interest. [However, in] some circumstances, necessity will direct that a decision be taken by a person with a direct personal interest in the outcome."

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; due process; exception; organisation's interest; safeguard; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 6

    Extract:

    "Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
    [T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; international civil servant; judicial review; misuse of authority; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; same; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2742


    105th Session, 2008
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "General principle dictates that a person cannot litigate the same issue in separate proceedings, much less in concurrent proceedings."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; difference; general principle; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; same; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2584


    102nd Session, 2007
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; breach; collective bargaining; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2391


    98th Session, 2005
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339

    Keywords:

    breach; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;



  • Judgment 2370


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 27.05.2020 ^ top