Competence of Tribunal (102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competence of Tribunal
Total judgments found: 463
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainant seeks an apology from the organization by order of the Tribunal. This claim is rejected as such an order is outside the Tribunal’s competence (see, for example, Judgment 2742, consideration 44, or Judgment 3597, consideration 10).
Keywords:
apology; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainant seeks an apology from the organization by order of the Tribunal. This claim is rejected as such an order is outside the Tribunal’s competence (see, for example, Judgment 2742, consideration 44, or Judgment 3597, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3597
Keywords:
apology; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 17
Extract:
In its pleas the UPU submits that “the UPU must stress that the [Tribunal] has made a decision which clearly sits outside its purview and seeks to call into question the mandate and authority of the [Council of Administration] as the sovereign governing body of the UPU between Congresses. If upheld, the Administration will have no choice but to take the matter to that governing body, as the [Director General] is in no way authorized to rescind [Council of Administration] decisions. Such an outcome might even lead to significant political implications of a wider character, including a review by UPU member countries of remedial mechanisms available to staff members for impugning decisions of the [Director General]” (emphasis added). This is a subtle threat to the Tribunal but a threat nonetheless. As an independent judicial body, the Tribunal is constituted by judges who must act without fear or favour. Such a threat must be ignored. Also, the threat if acted upon would subvert the operation of the rule of law at an international level. That is because dissatisfaction with a judgment lawfully rendered by a judicial body should never ground the rejection of the jurisdiction of that body. This is unacceptable behaviour by an international organization. The disdain the organization shows for the orderly resolution of justiciable disputes subverts the very institutions established to resolve them and the framework within which they operate. That is even more so as the organization’s understanding of the judgment in question is misconceived.
Keywords:
application for review; competence of tribunal; threat;
Judgment 4072
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.
Consideration 21
Extract:
In the rejoinder, the complainant’s counsel asks the Tribunal to deduct amounts for his benefit from the monetary awards made to the complainant. However, it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself with private arrangements made between complainants and their counsel. This request must therefore be rejected.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; counsel;
Judgment 4071
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.
Consideration 23
Extract:
In the rejoinder, the complainants’ counsel asks the Tribunal to deduct amounts for his benefit from the monetary awards made to the complainants. However, it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself with private arrangements made between complainants and their counsel. This request must therefore be rejected.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; counsel;
Judgment 4066
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to promote the complainant to the P-4 grade. However, as the impugned decision will be set aside, the matter will be remitted to the FAO for it to reconsider the decision not to promote her to the P-4 grade in 2013.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; promotion; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant's] purported challenge to the FAO’s decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute because he seeks to challenge a decision which is not concerned with the non-observance of the terms of his appointment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Additionally, the complainant’s request that the FAO hold the officials responsible for the contested decision accountable for their breach of the rules and regulations and for acting in bad faith is rejected, as is his request that the Tribunal order the FAO to issue an official announcement to clear his reputation, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions of this kind (see, for example, Judgment 2636, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant’s counsel has asked the Tribunal to order the Organization to make a deduction in his favour from the pecuniary awards granted to the complainant. But it is not the Tribunal’s role to interfere in the private relations between a complainant and his counsel. That request shall therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; counsel;
Judgment 4048
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her allegations of institutional harassment.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
[C]entrally underpinning the complaint is what is characterised as a decision of 14 January 2016. Necessarily, to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment. The complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute).
The letter of 10 December 2015, addressed to a Danish Minister, adverted to the allegation of institutional harassment and, in substance, was encouraging the Minister to take the opportunity of distancing himself from what the complainant perceived as a failure within the EPO to investigate the claimed harassment. The Tribunal can readily infer the letter was trying to bring about political pressure coming from the Minister directed to Mr K. The letter of 10 December 2015 did not in terms call upon the Minister to take any steps beyond, possibly, declaring his opposition to the “egregious and irregular treatment” of the complainant. It certainly did not demand or even request the vindication of a right, provision of a benefit or the enforcement of a duty or obligation of the type comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Moreover the responsive letter of 14 January 2016 did not address or concern, in so far as it directly responded to the letter of 10 December 2015, a non-observance of the type arising under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. In addition, it was written by Mr K., to the extent he was responding to the letter of 14 January 2016, in his capacity as Director General of a State government organ. Whatever he said in that capacity could not be treated as conduct of the EPO. Nonetheless, it may be thought that part of the letter should be treated as a response by Mr K. in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Council. However even if it was, it said nothing conclusively or determinedly about the complainant’s rights. There was not, in this respect, an administrative decision determining or resolving the complainant’s legal rights.
The character of the impugned decision in the letter of 24 January 2017, to the extent that it was the endpoint of a chain commencing with the letter of 10 December 2015, is determined by what preceded it. It was not, in this respect, a decision concerning a matter addressed by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4045
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who had worked at the EPO as a consultant, asks the Tribunal to confirm that he was employed under the conditions applicable to permanent employees or, alternatively, to auxiliary staff.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint will be dismissed. The foregoing shows that the complainant was an independent contractor employed by the private company to provide the subject services to the EPO. He had no employment connection with the EPO deriving from a contract of employment or from the status of a permanent employee (see Judgment 2649, under 8). He was not an EPO employee or an auxiliary staff member. His employment relationship was with the private company. He never belonged to the category of employees to whom the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the Office or the Conditions of Employment for Auxiliary Staff applied. There are therefore no similarities between his employment relationships with the EPO which would bring him within the principles stated in Judgment 3090, considerations 4 to 7, for example. In that judgment, the Tribunal held that it had competence, under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to hear the complaint of a person who had been employed under successive short-term contracts for seven years with the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2649, 3090
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae;
Judgment 4041
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As a former employee, the complainant challenges the decision to ban her from entering the EPO premises without prior authorisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint will be dismissed as the Tribunal has no competence to hear it. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly provides that the Tribunal shall be 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 present complaint does not fall within the ambit of this provision as it does not allege non-observance of the terms of an appointment which the complainant held with the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4029
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him the two-step within-grade increase which, he argues, WHO ought to have granted him at the time of his appointment under a fixed-term contract.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant’s request for an order requiring WHO to provide him with a Certificate of Service is beyond the Tribunal’s competence. However, it is noted that WHO has agreed to provide the complainant with a Certificate of Service upon request.
Keywords:
certificate of service; competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 4010
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
A convenient starting point in the Tribunal’s consideration of the complainant’s performance appraisals for 2012 is to identify the principles which are applicable. The principles are well settled. The Tribunal recognises that “assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment” (see Judgment 3945, consideration 7). The Tribunal will set aside a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 7, 3692, consideration 8, 3378, consideration 6, 3006, consideration 7, and 2834, consideration 7). [...]
[T]he complainant’s analysis does not reveal any factual errors that might have had a material effect on the ultimate conclusions about his performance. While the analysis reflects the complainant’s view, understandably favourable to him, of how he had performed in relation to those seven activities, it does not reveal an error of the type that would warrant intervention by the Tribunal having regard to the principles discussed in consideration 5 above. The complainant’s supervisor was entitled to form the view he had of the complainant’s performance and it was not flawed by any material factual error. It was a view based on evaluation and assessment of available material. While the complainant disagrees with that evaluation and assessment, it was within the supervisor’s discretionary power to make that evaluation and assessment, and there is no basis established by the complainant for reviewing the exercise of that power and for setting aside the performance appraisal which was, in part, based on it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3378, 3692, 3842, 3945
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; performance evaluation; performance report;
Judgment 4006
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
At the forefront of the ICC’s contention about receivability are the provisions of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. Those provisions define, establish and limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s contention is receivable, notwithstanding that no point has been raised before and within the internal consideration of the complainant’s Complaint about the receivability of the complaint. Plainly enough, the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as established by Article II of its Statute, can only arise at a point when a complainant seeks to invoke that jurisdiction.
Article II is concerned with the vindication and enforcement of individual rights or privileges of staff members of international organisations, conferred either by normative legal documents regulating or governing their employment, or conferred by the terms of their appointment. Similarly, the Article is concerned with the enforcement of obligations or duties of international organisations towards their staff. An overlay on these rights, privileges, duties and obligations is the Tribunal’s case law. These rights or privileges and duties or obligations may attach to individual staff members or a particular class of staff members which, obviously enough, can, and often does, include all staff members. This description of the scope of Article II can be expressed in a variety of ways. But this description captures the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by Article II. There are many judgments of the Tribunal that address this question including, recently, Judgments 3526, consideration 5, 3642, consideration 11, and 3760, consideration 6.
Articles 46 and 47 of the Rome Statute together with the implementing Rules in the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, are not intended to confer on members of staff, and do not do so, a particular right or privilege for the benefit of staff; nor are they intended to impose, and do not do so, a particular duty or obligation directed to members of staff. Rather, those provisions are intended to benefit the world at large. That is to say, they are provisions intended to preserve the integrity of the ICC as an international court by imposing a standard of conduct on the judges and senior officials of the Court, creating a mechanism for the enforcement of those standards and, additionally, affording anyone with an interest the opportunity to enforce those standards. They are not provisions of a character comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute insofar as they are invoked by staff members other than, potentially, the officials directly affected, such as the Registrar, the Prosecutor or an individual judge. Accordingly, proceedings invoking Articles 46 and 47 alone and seeking their enforcement are not within the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3526, 3642, 3760
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3999
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds it useful to note that even if it were possible to consider the complainant’s claim regarding reclassification, it would not be able to order the immediate reclassification of her post as requested. It is well settled in the case law that the Tribunal will not order the promotion or reclassification of a staff member, as such decisions are discretionary and involve specialist evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 3370, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3370
Keywords:
competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3989
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The EPO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3972.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The other questions entail, in substance, a request for an advisory opinion from the Tribunal [...]. However, it is not for the Tribunal to advise the parties with any particularity about what they should do or refrain from doing and whether a proposed course of conduct is in conformity with, or violates, provisions in the Service Regulations. In the event that either party, and the EPO in particular because it is amenable to proceedings against it in a further complaint or other proceedings, behaves unlawfully, the conduct is open to review.
Keywords:
application for execution; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 3949
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claims for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is not the Tribunal’s role, in a case such as the present, to adjudicate on the merits of a claim for compensation on medical grounds in the absence of a consideration of the question by a body that has been established for that purpose, if any, within an organisation (such as the ABCC) and in the absence of considered medical opinions addressing the question (see generally Judgment 3538, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; medical opinion;
Judgment 3940
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the outsourcing of certain services, that is to say the use by an organisation of external contractors to perform tasks that it feels unable to assign to officials hired under its staff regulations, forms part of the general employment policy that an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests. The Tribunal is not competent to review the advisability or merits of the adoption of such a measure in a specific field of activity (see Judgments 3275, under 8, 3225, under 6, 3041, under 6, 2972, under 7, 2907, under 13, 2510, under 10, 2156, under 8, and 1131, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2156, 2510, 2907, 2972, 3041, 3225, 3275
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; organisation's interest; outsourcing;
Judgment 3938
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
[The Organization] advised the complainant that [...] the [host State] authorities [...] would not issue her an entry visa [...].
As the complainant’s appointment was conditional on her obtaining a work visa, her appointment was not confirmed. It follows that as she was not a UNESCO official, her complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Consideration 26
Extract:
The Tribunal has no power to order the Global Fund, as the complainant requests, to renew her employment on a “long-term contract of continuing duration” to a post which fits her qualifications, background and experience. Neither does the Tribunal have power to award her material damages equivalent to the amount which she would have received in a higher position (see Judgment 3835, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3835
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
|
