Case law (179, 687, 856,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Case law
Total judgments found: 279
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"One of the tests which the Tribunal has developed over the years to determine whether or not a post has truly been abolished is to ask whether or not the 'abolition' has resulted in a reduction of the number of staff in the affected department. (See, for example, Judgment 139 [...].) If it has not, the presumption is that all that has taken place is a redistribution of functions among existing posts [...] and not the abolition of one or more posts".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 139
Keywords:
abolition of post; case law; consequence; criteria; definition; iloat; judicial review; post; reorganisation; staff reduction;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that an organisation is ordinarily free to determine the pay of its staff, provided that it respects certain requirements arising from general principles of international civil service law [...] Furthermore, if the organisation has a rule granting certain rights to staff members in relation to their level of salary, it may not depart from that rule in individual decisions without amending it in accordance with the prescribed procedure."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; case law; condition; discretion; formal requirements; general principle; individual decision; international civil service principles; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; right; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that the decision not to shortlist him was not adequately explained. But the plea cannot succeed. Precedent has it that when an organisation informs candidates that they have been unsuccessful, it must take care not to harm their prospects. Moreover, in announcing the results of a competition and, more generally when the administration has to choose between several candidates, as here, the reasons for the choice need not be given at the same time as the decision. It is enough for the reasons to be given in some later procedure (see Judgments 1990 and 2035 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2035
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competition; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; refusal; respect for dignity;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Candidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and when the process proves flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must 'shield' the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 2057
91st Session, 2001
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As the Tribunal found in Judgment 1682, confirming the precedent in Judgment 1329 [...], a line of argument cannot be entertained that would allow appeals to lie sine die against past decisions in a matter as delicate as the setting and periodic adjustment of staff pay."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329, 1682
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; decision; period; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;
Judgment 2039
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1982
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(A)
Extract:
"Precedent has it that, in the interests of the organisation, a chief executive may interrupt a competition, even in order to change the requirements of the post (see Judgment 1771, [...] under 4(e), and the judgments cited therein). He may even decide not to proceed to any appointment or promotion if he concludes that none of the candidates meets the specified requirements (see Judgment 1771, under4(c))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; discontinuance; organisation's interest;
Judgment 1979
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935
Keywords:
binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1978
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The case law has it that the exhaustion of all internal remedies is not necessary before filing an application for execution. However, the possibility of direct recourse to the Tribunal does not exclude first lodging an internal appeal (see Judgment 1887, [...] under 5, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 1973
89th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has always held that personal promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward someone for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. The granting of personal promotion is a discretionary decision which, as firm precedent has it, is subject to only limited review and will stand unless it shows a fatal flaw. In a case such as the present one, in which the general rules regarding personal promotions have been adopted and communicated to the staff, the appointing authority is bound by these rules and the Tribunal will consider any violation of them to be a fatal flaw."
Keywords:
breach; case law; discretion; executive head; flaw; judicial review; limits; patere legem; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 1963
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant [...] wants the President to be ordered to intervene so that the Administrative Council amends the Service Regulations. However, firm precedent has it that the Tribunal may not order such action [...] only in the event that the Office were under an obligation to change its rules in order to ensure respect for the fundamental conditions of service of staff members would the latter, faced with the silence or inaction of the administration, be entitled to challenge the unlawfulness of their situation. In the present case, however, it is fully within the competence of the President and the Administrative Council to amend or not the impugned provisions of the Service Regulations. [...] The complainant cannot plead any breach of his fundamental rights or guarantees as a result of the maintenance of rules which [...] are not unlawful."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456, 1591
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; claim; competence of tribunal; discretion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1961
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that "in Judgment 139 [...] the Tribunal made it clear that it did not consider the assignment of the duties of an abolished post to other staff members as an indication that there had been an abuse of authority, provided that the evidence showed that the number of staff members was in fact reduced." It affirms this case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 139
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; case law; condition; evidence; misuse of authority; staff reduction;
Judgment 1927
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In practice, while suspension is indeed an essentially interim measure which maintains the rights of the staff member concerned, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 353 [...], it is nevertheless a decision which causes injury to the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 353
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary procedure; injury; misconduct; safeguard; staff member's interest; suspension;
Judgment 1888
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Both the Regional Board and the Headquarters Board of Appeal made a specific finding that the appeals were receivable, but the Tribunal's case law establishes that notwithstanding such findings it is still open to the organization to submit the question of the receivability of the internal appeal to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 575
Keywords:
case law; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; report; right;
Judgment 1887
87th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Application for the execution of a previous judgment.
"The Tribunal's case law has it that exhausting all internal remedies is not in fact necessary in cases which involve determining whether the authority responsible for executing a judgment has respected its terms. It is however in principle essential when a case is sent back to that authority to resume or continue the procedure and when the judgment leaves it a degree of discretion. However, with a view to avoiding a sheer pedantic approach, the Tribunal will waive the requirement for exhaustion of internal remedies where no legal purpose is served, for example where the case is fit to be judged and the parties have submitted their pleas (see Judgment 1771 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; cause; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 1880
87th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"According to precedent [...] (see Judgments 1094 [...] and 1095 [...]), coverage at the rate of 100 per cent does not mean that in all circumstances an insured person is entitled to full repayment of expenses incurred. [T]o allow the [sickness] fund not to reimburse the part of the expenses deemed to be excessive is in keeping with the purpose of sickness insurance and it is a means of ensuring sound financing and comparable coverage for the beneficiaries, and as such falls within the authority delegated to the Director General. The reimbursement of expenses can be restricted by setting maximum limits or ceilings for certain types of expenditure or by reckoning limits for each case on the basis of costs incurred."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1094, 1095
Keywords:
case law; health insurance; illness; insurance; limits; maximum limit; medical expenses; purpose;
Judgment 1852
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law is consistent to the effect that a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him. [The present complaint] is a general attack which is not tied to any particular application of the impugned rules to the complainant. It will not therefore be considered by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 1329, 1423
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1839
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. The methodology [of the International Civil Service Commission] provides in paragraph 6 that, though it is preferable to have representatives of both management and staff take part, the technical requirements will still be met even if one side prefers not to; so that actual participation by both sides is not a requirement. Nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1838
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
|
