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

Competence of Tribunal (102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Competence of Tribunal
Total judgments found: 421

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >

  • Judgment 4439


    132nd Session, 2021
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;



  • Judgment 4432


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to accept only part of the recommendations of the Appeals Committee on his appeal against the postponement of a strike ballot by the President of the European Patent Office.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to address alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of a member of the staff of an international organisation or the non-observance of the Staff Regulations “as are applicable to the case” (Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute). If non-observance of a Staff Regulation (or other applicable normative legal document) is conceded before the proceedings in the Tribunal are commenced (in this case non-observance of paragraph 3 of Circular No. 347), there is no justiciable issue about non-observance for the Tribunal to determine. At least ordinarily, the reasons for the concession are irrelevant to the issue of non-observance.

    Keywords:

    claim moot; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment 4430


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In these proceedings the complainants seek relief that, in substance, involves a declaration that CA/D 5/13 and Circular No. 347 are each unlawful and that each should be set aside. As to the Circular, the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to its case law and its Statute, that it has jurisdiction to declare the Circular unlawful and set it aside (see, for example, Judgments 2857, 3522 and 3513). The position is not so clear in relation to CA/D 5/13 which, if it were set aside, would likely have the legal effect of setting aside current (at least as at the time the proceedings in the Tribunal were commenced) provisions of the Service Regulations. While the Tribunal can examine the lawfulness of provisions of a general decision (see, for example, Judgments 92, consideration 3, 2244, consideration 8, and 4274, consideration 4), whether it has jurisdiction to set aside a provision of the Service Regulations is a significant legal question on which the Tribunal’s case law is unclear. It should be resolved in an appropriate case by a plenary panel of the Tribunal constituted by seven judges, which is not presently possible.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 92, 2244, 2857, 3513, 3522, 4274

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 4422


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainants question aspects of the Tribunal’s case law and previous judgments. Mr K., in particular, refers to attempts he made to reach an amicable settlement in various cases he had with the EPO. He also seems to suggest that the Tribunal should report an allegation which he makes in his additional submissions to the German authorities. The Tribunal will not advert to these and other statements which are outside the scope of the present complaints.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; internal remedies not exhausted;



  • Judgment 4409


    132nd Session, 2021
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed;

    Considerations 3-5

    Extract:

    It should be noted that OTIF, by a decision adopted by its Administrative Committee at its session on 27 and 28 June 2017 and notified by its Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
    In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, as set out in Judgments 1043, consideration 3, and 4141, considerations 2 to 4, that withdrawal took effect on the date of the deliberation of the Governing Body of the ILO taking note of the decision in question, which in the present case took place on 13 March 2018.
    Although the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the complaint that gave rise to Judgment 4215, which had been filed before that date and which OTIF had expressly excluded from the scope of its withdrawal decision, since that date, the Tribunal has no longer been competent to hear new complaints against that Organisation.
    However, it must be considered that, where, as in this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment. The Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its judgments, should that be necessary. For similar reasons, the Tribunal also remains competent to hear applications for execution or review that may be brought in respect of a judgment delivered in the same circumstances.
    Notwithstanding the date on which it was filed, this application does therefore fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and it is noted that the Organisation does not raise any objections on this point in its reply.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4403


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for additional compensation for the injuries suffered in connection with the performance of his contract and to deny him access to the internal appeal process.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; non official; ratione personae;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The fact that consultants are defined […] as staff members for purposes of the Compensation Plan insurance only does not sustain a conclusion that a consultant covered by this insurance policy is an official for the purposes of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Consultants like the complainant were not.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; insurance; non official; ratione personae;



  • Judgment 4402


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.

    The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.

    The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;



  • Judgment 4391


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    Inasmuch as no evidence was provided that the Promotion Board had recommended his promotion retroactive to 2008, and keeping in mind that it is not within the Tribunal’s purview to order the promotion of an official (see Judgments 4066, consideration 11, and 4040, consideration 2), the complainant is entitled to material damages for the loss of a valuable opportunity to be promoted. The EPO will be ordered to pay the complainant a lump-sum amount equivalent to the cumulative amount of the additional salaries and all other benefits that he would have been entitled to receive through his monthly payslips, had he been promoted in the 2012 exercise, until the date of his retirement.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4040, 4066

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; loss of opportunity; material damages; promotion;



  • Judgment 4377


    131st Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he was promised promotion to grade D-2.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    As regards the complainant’s request for retroactive promotion to grade D-2 from 1 September 2003, the Tribunal points out that it is not for it, in any event, to order that an official be promoted (see Judgments 3999, consideration 9, and 4066, consideration 11). This claim will therefore be dismissed at the outset as irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3999, 4066

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; promotion;



  • Judgment 4376


    131st Session, 2021
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges WIPO’s alleged failure to take appropriate measures to protect him under its Whistleblower Protection Policy after he had made a report of misconduct.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant’s claim to be granted a fixed-term contract is rejected, first, because the Tribunal has no competence to make such an order. The appointment of the staff members of an international organization is within the exclusive power of the appointing authority of the organization concerned. Secondly, in an international organization where, as a rule, appointments are to be made following a competitive recruitment process, the granting of an appointment cannot be an appropriate form of compensation, because it infringes the rights of other persons who would otherwise have been entitled to compete for the subject position.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; fixed-term;



  • Judgment 4373


    131st Session, 2021
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The complainant has requested a letter from the Director-General apologizing and clearing him of all charges. However, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, it is not competent to make orders of this kind (see, for example, Judgments 3069, consideration 5, and 4215, consideration 27).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069, 4215

    Keywords:

    apology; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4363


    131st Session, 2021
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [I]t is not within the Tribunal’s purview to extend the complainant’s appointment.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4329


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the EPO, requested the President of the Office to provide him with a written declaration affirming that he was not a target of certain practices alleged in press articles.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal 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 Staff Regulations”.
    The complainant requested the President of the Office to provide him with a written declaration affirming that he was not a target of certain practices alleged in press articles. There is no obligation in the Service Regulations for the President to issue such a declaration and therefore the decision not to grant such a request does not amount to “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.
    Similarly, the complainant did not affirm that his home equipment was illegally monitored. In fact, his allegation that his equipment at home was monitored by the EPO is purely hypothetical and he asks that this hypothetical violation should cease. Again, he does not allege “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4326


    130th Session, 2020
    International Cocoa Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision that was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4325


    130th Session, 2020
    International Cocoa Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision that was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organisation concerned has addressed a declaration recognising the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Although, as stated in consideration 2 above, these requirements have been met in this case, the decision impugned by the complainant was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which, moreover, it did not do until well after the expiry of the “ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned” in which complaints must be filed pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; late filing;



  • Judgment 4303


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] appears to argue that the amount awarded by way of moral damages was inadequate, though she contests the notion that it is merely a question of amount and submits that it involves, additionally, recognition of “lifelong harm done”. But the relief the Tribunal can provide is confined to “compensation for injury” in accordance with the terms of Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4301


    130th Session, 2020
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to withdraw a vacancy notice and re-advertise it, and the ad interim appointment of a colleague in the meantime.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he contested changes were intended to satisfy the need to strengthen the core human potential and expertise of the NE Department concentrating more on nuclear energy specialists whose positions require special areas of knowledge. The modification of the university specialization was consistent with the pursued objective. It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to review the organizational programmatic choices of the Agency.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; organisation's interest; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 4295


    130th Session, 2020
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to impose a disciplinary measure against him.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [A] ruling by an internal appeal body on its own competence or the final decision maker’s acceptance of the ruling cannot give the Tribunal competence to hear a complaint beyond that provided in its Statute. As well, it is for the Tribunal to determine if it is competent to hear the complaint (see Judgments 1509, consideration 14, and 3247, consideration 19).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509, 3247

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4292


    130th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The FAO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4065.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    In its application for interpretation, the FAO states that while it notes that the five points of the decision in Judgment 4065 are expressed in clear terms, it became apparent from the exchanges of correspondence between the parties (referred to in the foregoing considerations) that they have differing views regarding what the decision requires them to do. This, it states, is because “there appears to be some ambiguity as to what actions are required as a consequence of Point 1 [of the Decision], having regard to Consideration 8 of the Judgment”, on which it requests the Tribunal’s guidance.
    The FAO is entitled to apply for the interpretation of consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 as it has done in this instance as, according to the Tribunal’s case law, as stated, for example in Judgment 3984, consideration 10, although ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment, it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision. In this instance, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 4065 incorporated consideration 8 of Judgment 4065. The critical question is whether the application is receivable. As the case law further states, in the said consideration 10 of Judgment 3984, such an application is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed.
    The application for interpretation is irreceivable. Consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 is clear and unambiguous. [...] It is not within the Tribunal’s purview to provide an advisory opinion or guidance concerning the steps that are to follow the discussion or what should happen if events unfold in a certain way. The Tribunal reiterates that both the FAO and the complainant must approach the implementation of its order in point 2 and the analysis contained in consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 in a rational, sensible and balanced way, and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see Judgment 3989, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 3989, 4065

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4291


    130th Session, 2020
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    In his claims for relief, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order a number of measures which are either unrelated to the present complaint or beyond the Tribunal’s competence, namely, that the Tribunal should order the UPU to: initiate disciplinary action against UPU officials; re-credit the complainant with previously deducted sick leave, salary, home leave and other emoluments; commence a reclassification review of the complainant’s post; revise the complainant’s job description and grade; and allow the complainant “to work permanently from home at a percentage mutually agreed upon by him and his treating physician”. Those claims will not be considered.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top