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

Declaration of recognition (217,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Declaration of recognition
Total judgments found: 23

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 3152


    114th Session, 2013
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;



  • Judgment 3003


    111th Session, 2011
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 40 and 46

    Extract:

    Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, in the version applicable to the international organisations which have accepted the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, provides that: "In any case in which the Executive Board of an international organization which has made the declaration specified in Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal challenges a decision of the Tribunal confirming its jurisdiction, or considers that a decision of the Tribunal is vitiated by a fundamental fault in the procedure followed, the question of the validity of the decision given by the Tribunal shall be submitted by the Executive Board concerned, for an advisory opinion, to the International Court of Justice."
    "[I]t must be emphasised that the question of whether international organisations should be allowed to request a stay of execution of a judgment that they intend to challenge under Article XII of the Statute arises in the context of a procedure which is already fundamentally imbalanced to the detriment of staff members. [T]he option of submitting a request to the Court for an opinion on the basis of that article is confined to the organisations. [...]
    Clearly, it is not for the Tribunal to express a critical opinion on a provision of its own Statute. However, it does have to take care, given that this particular provision creates an objective inequality between the parties, to ensure that its own case law does not in any way amplify the consequences of this inequality, which would undeniably occur if requests for a stay of execution submitted by organisations availing themselves of the Article XII procedure were to be considered admissible. To adopt that course would cause serious harm to the legitimate interests of the officials concerned, thereby upsetting the balance between the rights of the organisations and those of their staff members which it is the Tribunal's role to preserve."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute;



  • Judgment 2985


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    "The complainant has requested that the order to Eurocontrol to recalculate the pensionable years credited to him be accompanied by a penalty for default. In the absence of any grounds for doubting that the Agency will execute this judgment in good faith and with diligence, as is its duty since it has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction, there is no reason to order such a penalty."

    Keywords:

    claim; consequence; declaration of recognition; execution of judgment; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2798


    106th Session, 2009
    International Organisation of Vine and Wine
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
    "It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2657


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
    It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 2623


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal has no authority to issue interim injunctions against organisations that have accepted its jurisdiction."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; judicial review; organisation; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2582


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Olive Oil Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The IOOC recognised the Tribunal's competence by a letter of 19 September 2003 addressed to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO). "Although the complainant's appointment with the IOOC ended prior to that recognition, which was approved by the ILO's Governing Body at its 288th Session in November 2003, the Tribunal considers that it may properly hear the present case brought by a former official of the IOOC who, subsequently to that recognition, has alleged a breach of statutory provisions."

    Keywords:

    breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; date; declaration of recognition; executive body; executive head; provision; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2549


    101st Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10, 11 and 13

    Extract:

    The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
    "The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
    After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715

    Keywords:

    analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; official; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same-sex marriage; social benefits; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 1773


    85th Session, 1998
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    "The [Organization] argues that the Tribunal is not competent to hear [the complaints]. In its submission [the] contract of employment [signed by the complainant] does not vest competence in the Tribunal but expressly provides for arbitration over any dispute. In the circumstances of the case the plea cannot succeed. The [Organization refused the complainant's] request for arbitration. Although there was no express provision vesting competence in the Tribunal to hear the dispute between the Organization and the complainant, it employed him, paid his salary and terminated his appointment. There is therefore no denying the Tribunal's competence by virtue of the general terms of Article II of its Statute. Such denial would mean either that no court at all had jurisdiction or that the case must go to the [national] courts, to whose jurisdiction the [Organization] declines to submit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; municipal court; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 1509


    81st Session, 1996
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Article II(5) empowers the Tribunal to hear a complaint which an official of an international organisation that has duly recognised its jurisdiction has filed and which alleges non-observance of either the terms of the official's appointment or the Staff Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 231 [...], those are 'two conditions which in practice coincide'. The reference to 'Staff Regulations' means those of the organisation of which a complainant is or was an official and does not include the Staff Regulations of any other."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II(5) OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 231

    Keywords:

    applicable law; breach; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; locus standi; official; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 1328


    76th Session, 1994
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The possibility of cancellation of WIPO's recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction calls for no comment save that making an international organisation's decisions subject to judicial review affords a basic safeguard both of its own interests and of staff rights."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; judicial review; organisation's interest; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 1266


    75th Session, 1993
    International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 1265, consideration 24.

    Keywords:

    adjustment; competence of tribunal; coordinated organisations; declaration of recognition; general service category; icsc decision; local status; official; organisation's duties; reckoning; right of appeal; salary; scale; written rule;



  • Judgment 1265


    75th Session, 1993
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The organization, a member of the "common system" administered by the ICSC, revised the salaries of staff in the general service category in keeping with a scale drawn up by the ICSC for organisations whose headquarters are in Geneva. The complainants submit that the ICSC's decisions are invalid. "Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and WIPO must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard. It is therefore plain that the complainants' rights to judicial process are safeguarded by the defendant organization's recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction may not be restricted by the introduction into the organization's Staff Regulations or Rules adopted by bodies outside the Tribunal's competence."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; competence of tribunal; coordinated organisations; declaration of recognition; general service category; icsc decision; international civil service principles; judicial review; local status; official; organisation's duties; reckoning; right of appeal; salary; scale; staff member's interest; written rule;



  • Judgment 1166


    73rd Session, 1992
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The organization challenges the Tribunal's competence on the grounds that it has no employment relationship with the complainant: an unpaid associate like him does not serve CERN and is not subject to its rules, and the organization does not pay the complainant for his work. The plea fails. [...] It is not in dispute that CERN has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as indeed is reflected in Rule VI 1.05 of its Staff Rules. Moreover, the complainant, who belongs to the staff of CERN as an unpaid associate, is alleging non-observance of provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations. As for his not working for CERN, not being subject to its rules and not getting payment from it, those are issues that have a bearing, not on the Tribunal's competence, but on the receivability of his complaint. The Tribunal has jurisdiction."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: CERN STAFF RULE VI 1.05

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; receivability of the complaint; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 1065


    70th Session, 1991
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the Tribunal is incompetent to hear disputes between the EPO and its employees. "He is mistaken. In accordance with Article 13 of the European Patent Convention, the European Patent Organisation has made a declaration recognising the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of disputes between the Organisation and its employees, and the Governing Body of the International Labour Office has approved that declaration."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13 OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; condition; declaration of recognition;



  • Judgment 1033


    69th Session, 1990
    International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "According to Article II(5) of its Statute, [the Tribunal] is competent to hear a complaint only if the international organisation that employs the complainant has addressed to the Director-General of the International Labour Office a declaration of recognition in accordance with its constitution or internal administrative rules and if the Governing body of the International Labour Office has approved the declaration." As the International Union for the protection of new varieties of plants (UPOV) has not met these requirements, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint filed by an official of that organisation even though the WIPO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules apply to him as a UPOV employee.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; condition; declaration of recognition; enforcement; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1013


    68th Session, 1990
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Although the language groups of the [Universal Postal] Union do have some autonomy, they lack legal personality of their own and, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 122, the [UPU's] recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction applies to the groups as well."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 122

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Union may always denounce its recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, though in keeping with the rule that similar acts require similar procedures the same authority must denounce the recognition, and by the same process, as originally declared it."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition;



  • Judgment 532


    49th Session, 1982
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The declaration of recognition mentioned in Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal "recognises not only the Tribunal's competence but also the applicability of its Rules of court. An organisation which makes such a declaration accepts the provisions of the Statute and the Rules of court, and any provisions in its own rule book on the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are of no effect, whether they comply with the Tribunal's rules or not."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    consequence; declaration of recognition; difference; enforcement; iloat statute; precedence of rules; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 493


    48th Session, 1982
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The international agreement thus concluded between the ILO and the Agency in accordance with Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal is not subject to any limitations on the recognition of the Tribunal's competence other than those arising out of the actual text. The Tribunal derives its competence from that international agreement, which prevails over rules unilaterally adopted earlier by one of the parties. The agreement recognising the Tribunal's competence does not exempt staff members such as the complainant from the application of [the Staff Rules and Regulations]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; enforcement; international instrument; provision; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 369


    42nd Session, 1979
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    Under an agreement, the IPI was integrated into the EPO which took over the assets and liabilities and "replaced the Institute in disputes with its staff members. Hence the EPO, and not the Institute, is the defendant in the present case, its recognition of the Tribunal's competence having been accepted by the Governing Body of the International Labour [Office]."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; consequence; declaration of recognition; merger;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top