|
|
 |
|
|
Submissions (142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Submissions
Total judgments found: 49
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 3692
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant who, at the material time, was working as a patent examiner, objects to three of his staff reports, submits that he was subjected to harassment and challenges the rejection of his request for an independent examination of several of his dissenting opinions on patent applications.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] recalls that, according to Article 6(1)(b) of its Rules, a complainant’s arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself. They may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as is the case here. This manner of proceeding is contrary to the Rules and makes it impossible for the Tribunal and the other party clearly to understand the complainant’s pleas (see Judgment 3434, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434
Keywords:
submissions;
Judgment 3432
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s brief (without annexures) in the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises three pages. It is, at times, expressed in inappropriately colourful language. The brief effectively adopts the documented argument of the complainant in the internal appeal (a practice the Tribunal does not approve of) [...].
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements; procedure before the tribunal; submissions;
Judgment 3279
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol’s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944
Keywords:
case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;
Judgment 3260
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After divorce proceedings with serious financial consequences, the complainant challenges the refusal to refer to the General Council of the WTO the issue of compatibility between the judgment of the Swiss Federal Court against him and certain provisions of the Headquarters Agreement and the Pension Plan Regulations.
Consideration 31
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that the disrespectful and overly aggressive language and the personal attacks found in the rejoinder have no place in pleadings before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
formal requirements; submissions;
Judgment 3103
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are, to a large extent, interdependent, and the Tribunal finds it appropriate that they be joined, notwithstanding the complainant's position (see Judgments 2861, under 6, and 2944, under 19)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 2944
Keywords:
claim; complaint; joinder; submissions;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it 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 [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Absolute privilege also operates to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. A tribunal would not be independent and impartial, nor seen to be so, if it were to assume the role of dictating to the parties the evidence and arguments that they can advance in their cases. That is not to say that a tribunal cannot control its own proceedings by, for example, excluding irrelevant evidence or striking out scandalous pleadings. Nor does it mean that a tribunal cannot draw inferences by reason of the nature of the evidence or argument presented, including in appropriate cases, adverse inferences as to the motive of the party relying on that evidence or argument. But if the evidence or argument is relevant to the issues to be decided, it is for the parties alone to determine whether they will rely on it. And because the parties must have that freedom or privilege, a tribunal cannot apply sanctions in separate proceedings with respect to the evidence or arguments advanced, particularly not after the proceedings have been completed. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality to litigation."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; evidence; independence; judicial review; submissions;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
While the complainant has referred to these matters in her submissions, with the exception of the allegations concerning the interruption of her sick leave and the exit medical examination, she has not done so for the purpose of advancing a claim, but instead to provide a context for her other allegations.
Keywords:
claim; complaint; submissions;
Judgment 2510
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant's case."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; evidence; further submissions; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; submissions;
Judgment 2362
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant's candidacy to a vacant post was rejected. "She states that her immediate supervisor [had] received a minute from HRD, instructing her that in preparing her shortlist of candidates, priority should be given to internal candidates, then to those persons who had been working for the Office for an extended period on what are regarded as 'precarious' conditions, such as herself, and lastly to other external candidates. She contends that, contrary to the instructions in the minute, her supervisor reviewed all the candidates in order to prepare her shortlist, disregarding those priorities, thus rendering the selection decision null and void. [The Tribunal considers that] what is important, however, is that the recruitment procedure in the Staff Regulations and the terms of the vacancy notice were complied with. The priorities for shortlisting candidates were merely indicated in a minute from HRD."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; information note; internal candidate; priority; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; staff regulations and rules; submissions; supervisor; terms of appointment; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2307
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
The investigation of a complaint filed by an international civil servant should not be used subsequently as the basis for an appraisal report, and even less to justify the termination of a contract.
The complainant is, accordingly, right in maintaining that the assessment which led the Reports Board to recommend that her contract should not be extended and the Director-General subsequently to endorse that recommendation, was based on information which should not have been taken into consideration.
Keywords:
internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; performance report; submissions; termination of employment;
Judgment 2285
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that it need not ascertain whether procedural irregularities were committed by the Ombudsperson, since the latter merely put forward a proposal which did not constitute a decision and which was addressed exclusively to the complainant, inviting her to relinquish her management responsibilities, that is, to resign. The only decision the complainant can challenge is precisely that which she alleges was unlawful, namely the decision [taken on behalf of the Director-General to release her from her position], which was independent of the Ombudsperson's proposal. Even though there is no doubt that it was the outcome of the Ombudsperson's investigations which led the [...] authorities to take the challenged decision, the lawfulness of that decision must be assessed independently of the Ombudsperson's proposal."
Keywords:
advisory body; decision; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; resignation; submissions; transfer;
Judgment 2282
96th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The integrity of the internal appellate process is of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of the international civil service. Like the process before the Tribunal itself, it must be free of any taint of fraud or abuse of power. If mere delay in the completion of an internal appeal is enough to vitiate the process (see Judgments 2072 and 2197), how much more will that be the case where the process is corrupted at its very source by an attempt to keep staff members from exercising their legal rights. The Tribunal asserts unhesitatingly that intimidation or threats of reprisal in such circumstances will be severely sanctioned. Indeed, there is a positive obligation on the part of the administration of every international organisation to assist staff in the exercise of their recourse and to place no obstacle in their way."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2197
Keywords:
abuse of power; delay; due process; hidden disciplinary measure; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of consent; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right; submissions;
Judgment 2264
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(e)
Extract:
"In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
Judgment 2072
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The appeal procedure was inordinately long: the case was before the Committee for two years, yet it was not a very difficult one and it needed to be settled promptly [...] In these circumstances, the delay in resolving it amounts to negligence warranting compensation. The Tribunal therefore considers that the complainant is entitled to redress, and it sets the amount at 3,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; internal appeals body; misconduct; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; right; submissions;
Judgment 2062
91st Session, 2001
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal's practice is to consider any items that are material to the case".
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; practice; submissions; tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not use [the confidential documents submitted by the organisation] to the complainant's detriment unless he has had the opportunity to see them beforehand".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complainant; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; right to reply; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1870
87th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Mr. B., intervening in a previous case, had resorted to an expert in graphology in order to prove that the complainant, who contested his appointment to a post, had falsified documents. He seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred in obtaining this expert opinion. "The steps he took were not necessary since, when expert opinion is required, it is for the Tribunal to order it on its own motion or on the application of another party (Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal). Mr. B. should therefore have confined himself to submitting the question to the Tribunal, which would have judged the pertinence of the matter and the validity of the proof supplied. The costs which he incurred in obtaining an extra-judicial expert opinion, which cannot replace a judicial expert opinion, were not therefore necessary." So they are not reimbursable by the organisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; cost of expert inquiry; expert inquiry; further submissions; intervention; submissions;
Judgment 1745
85th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The [Organisation] says, quite rightly, that the verbatim record of the Board's hearings does not have the same authority in law as formal minutes. Yet statements made by some witnesses, undoubtedly in good faith, are worth citing."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence; good faith; internal appeals body; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 1684
84th Session, 1998
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rules provide ordinarily for the filing of only two briefs by each party. There are no exceptional circumstances warranting a third one from the complainant, and since the arguments in it are immaterial the President of the Tribunal has disallowed it under Article 9(6)" of the Tribunal's Rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; closure of written proceedings; condition; exception; iloat statute; president of the tribunal; refusal; submissions;
Judgment 1661
83rd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant has applied for hearings to take evidence from several witnesses and from himself [...]". The Tribunal holds that there is no need for hearings or from the taking of evidence from the proposed witnesses and gives six reasons why.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; evidence; oral proceedings; refusal; right to reply; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 1659
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The defendant strongly objects to the complainants' producing privileged documents which it says they should never have disclosed without leave from the Secretary-General and which should therefore be discounted. The complainants explain that when still on the staff they were regularly sent such documents. So it is hard to see what is wrong with their relying thereon in pleadings that are confidential anyway."
Keywords:
acceptance; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; evidence; executive head; iloat; submissions;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
