|
|
 |
|
|
Interlocutory order (135, 136, 137,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Interlocutory order
Total judgments found: 25
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 3209
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
"[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant did not receive the Reports Board's recommendation, which constituted the basis of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The Tribunal considers that in the present case the complainant is entitled to see the Reports Board's recommendation, an essential document on which the Administration based its decision not to renew his contract. By withholding that document the Organization deprived the complainant of an item of evidence that was essential for the preparation of his defence and the Tribunal of a document enabling it to exercise its power of review.
Accordingly there are grounds for ordering further submissions in order that the file may be supplemented with a copy of the Reports Board's recommendation, as requested by the complainant."
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; complainant; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 2136
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;
Judgment 1883
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
"The complainant contests [the non-renewal of his contract] by a motion for an interlocutory order, [he] seeks preliminary injunctive relief to force the organization to place him on unpaid leave of absence and to offer him contract work as available. [T]o allow the motion would of necessity decide the principal issue in the complaint which is before the Tribunal on the merits. The requested injunction would have the effect of altering the status quo. The reply raises serious issues which should only be determined on the merits." The Tribunal adds that "the allegation of irreparable harm is unconvincing" [and that] "the balance of hardships favours the organization."
Keywords:
compensation; contract; interlocutory order; non-renewal of contract; order;
Judgment 1468
80th Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The case turns on a question whose answer may affect another official adversely. "She is invited to make such submissions to the Tribunal as she thinks fit, and to do so within thirty days of her receiving the text of the present judgment, which is an interlocutory order. The Union and the complainant may each file observations within a time limit of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of her submissions."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; staff member's interest; submissions; time limit;
Judgment 1417
78th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In accordance with Article 11(1) of its Rules the Tribunal invites the International Civil Service Commission "by the present order to make any further submissions in answer to the complainants' claims [...] that it considers necessary. It will allow the Commission thirty days in which to do so."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11(1) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; icsc statute; iloat statute; interlocutory order; time limit;
Judgment 1373
77th Session, 1994
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"In this judgment, which is an interlocutory order, the Tribunal will follow the precedent it set in Judgment 875 [...]. It orders two expert inquiries. It will appoint both a scientific expert and a medical expert, and their terms of reference will be as set out in the operative points of the decision below."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 875
Keywords:
case law; expert inquiry; further submissions; interlocutory order;
Judgment 1240
74th Session, 1993
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant objects to the Tribunal's decision in an interlocutory order to dismiss his claims in part. He alleges that "the circumstances of the case prevented him from pleading his case in full. He makes out that the Tribunal cannot have given due account to his pleas and may have committed an error of judgment. Those comments are not admissible. The complainant was given, in keeping with the Rules of Court, the opportunity of stating his views in full [...] so there is no basis for his challenging the authority of the interlocutory order insofar as it made a final ruling on most of his claims."
Keywords:
application for review; interlocutory order; res judicata;
Judgment 1226
74th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainants apply for hearings. They have already had the opportunity of enlarging on their original submissions and on their rejoinders and of commenting on the ample evidence at their disposal. They sought leave to file submissions in answer to the surrejoinder and the disclosure of additional information and items. The interlocutory judgment granted the parties leave to file further submissions, which are now before the Tribunal. It therefore has all the material required for a final ruling. It dismisses the complainants' application as pointless."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; oral proceedings; refusal; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1197
73rd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14, Summary
Extract:
Since the Organization has remained silent at all stages of the proceedings on various questions raised by the complainant, being "prevented from ruling on the issues before it the Tribunal adjourns review of the merits of the case pending further information and argument." It accordingly orders further submissions.
Keywords:
further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; reply; tribunal;
Judgment 1188
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
After the Director-General imposed a disciplinary sanction on the complainant he lodged an internal appeal. Rule 110.4.3 of the Staff Rules says that "the deliberations and reports of the Disciplinary Committee and its recommendations to the Director- General shall be confidential". The material issue is "whether the full text of the Disciplinary Committee's report, and not just the text of its recommendation, was disclosed to the Joint Appeals Committee. If it was, the Union should have let the complainant too have a copy and, failing that, there was a procedural flaw in that there was breach of his right of defence."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 110.4.3
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; interlocutory order; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; report; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"An item that formed part of the internal appeal proceedings should be at the Tribunal's disposal since it cannot otherwise appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw. Further submissions are therefore required to complete the case records."
Keywords:
decision; disclosure of evidence; flaw; further submissions; interlocutory order; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; report;
Judgment 1177
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"When the Director-General's decision is not based on the results of an examination marked by an independent body, he has a wide degree of discretion in making an appointment and granting promotion. Though he is not bound by any recommendation from an advisory body, his authority does not make referral to such a body pointless. A selection body relieves him of the burden of carrying out an assessment himself. It ensures that all applications for appointment or promotion, whatever their source, shall be examined impartially and on the merits. And its report enables the Tribunal to appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw."
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; competition; discretion; further submissions; impartiality; interlocutory order; judicial review; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; report;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The defendant organisation has refused to produce certain documents pleading privilege. "An item that forms part of the decision may not be withheld from the Tribunal's scrutiny. [...] There shall therefore be further submissions to complete the case records, the Union being required to supply the [material documents]."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; refusal;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
In Judgment 963 the Tribunal set aside in part an initial reduction in the rate of refund of educational expenses at Eurocontrol insofar as the reduction was given retroactive effect. The present complaints challenge the second reduction. Recalling a recurring principle in the case law (see Judgments 726 and 825) that "a reduction in pay may not be so great as to disrupt the structure of the terms of appointment and that there must be sound reasons for it", the Tribunal orders further submissions in which the defendant organisation shall explain in greater detail the favourable effects of the measure.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 726, 825, 963
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; education expenses; further submissions; interlocutory order; reduction of salary; refund; salary;
Judgment 1087
70th Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Coordination Committee of WIPO repealed Staff Regulation 3.1 bis which safeguarded salaries against fluctuations in the exchange rate between the dollar and the Swiss franc. The Organization having offered a perfunctory defence, the Tribunal orders further submissions.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 3.1 BIS
Keywords:
further submissions; interlocutory order; organisation's duties; provision; repeal; staff regulations and rules; submissions;
Judgment 989
68th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Before ruling on this case the Tribunal wishes to have further submissions".
Keywords:
additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order;
Judgment 947
65th Session, 1988
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
"The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical inquiry, which establish finally the medical aspects of the case. In view of the findings the Tribunal, before delivering a final judgment, requires from the complainant his replies to the following questions: (1) what invalidity pension is he claiming in compensation for total work disability caused as to 50 per cent by the accident ? (2) what is the total amount he is claiming in compensation for loss of function of the foot and of this amount what portion is attributable to loss of enjoyment of life ?"
Keywords:
disability benefit; expert inquiry; further submissions; incapacity; interlocutory order; invalidity; loss of enjoyment of life; medical examination;
Judgment 899
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
The Tribunal is being prevented "from determining the ambit of the dispute and exercising its power of review. The Tribunal requires [...] further submissions before ruling on the merits".
Keywords:
further submissions; interlocutory order; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 876
63rd Session, 1987
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"A ruling on the lawfulness of the impugned decision requires disclosure of the papers the complainant cites and indeed the organization is not against disclosing them. The Tribunal orders further submissions as follows: [...]."
Keywords:
further submissions; inquiry; interlocutory order; investigation; transfer; working relations;
Judgment 875
63rd Session, 1987
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The information available does not enable the Tribunal to assess whether the accident of 3 April 1982 resulted in all the permanent injuries now suffered by the complainant or only in the permanent injury to his left foot. In these circumstances an examination should be carried out by a medical expert whose terms of reference are set out below."
Keywords:
expert inquiry; further submissions; incapacity; interlocutory order; invalidity; medical examination; professional accident; rate; service-incurred;
Judgment 558
50th Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The organisation is opposed to the disclosure of the report [on which the impugned decision is based] on the grounds that the report is an internal document not included in the items which the service regulations require to be put in a staff member's personal file. "There are two reasons why the complainant's application should succeed. First, it concerns a report which deals with the point in dispute and which has a bearing on the Tribunal's decision. Secondly, the impugned decision does not give the reasons set out in the report, even though it does not describe the report as confidential."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; order; report; request by a party;
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
"In the course of the written proceedings, the complainant applied to the President of the Tribunal for an order for the production of the report on which the impugned decision was based." Her application succeeds. "When in session the Tribunal itself will order measures of investigation, and the President has communicated the complainant's application to the Tribunal, which is holding its [...] session."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; order; president of the tribunal; request by a party;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
