|
|
 |
|
|
International instrument (226, 685,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: International instrument
Total judgments found: 24
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4551
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest modifications made with respect to the use of mass emails within the Office.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law has long recognised that staff of international organisations have a general right to associate freely. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers should enjoy. It is recognised as a right by the Tribunal as well as by a large number of international conventions and declarations (see, for example, the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Article 2(a); the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22; the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 8), and by the Administrative Council of the EPO itself, which recognised the importance of human rights when formulating the rights and obligations of staff (see Judgment 4482, considerations 12 and 13). Article 30 of the Service Regulations, entitled “Freedom of association”, provides: “Permanent employees shall enjoy freedom of association; they may in particular be members of trade unions or staff associations of European civil servants”. The role of staff associations or unions is to represent the interests of members primarily in dealing with their employing organisation on issues concerning the staff. Staff associations or unions should be able to do so unhindered or uninfluenced by the Administration of the employing organisation. Were it otherwise, the role would be compromised (see Judgment 4482, consideration 8).
Freedom of association necessarily involves freedom of discussion and debate. In Judgment 274, under 22, the Tribunal stated that “this freedom when feelings run strong [...] can spill over into extravagant and even regrettable language”. Nonetheless, the Tribunal also acknowledged that freedom of discussion and debate is not absolute and that there may be cases in which an Administration can intervene if, for example, there is “gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives” (see Judgments 2227, consideration 7, and 3106, consideration 8).
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the Administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. Thus, any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the Administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned (see Judgment 911 and Judgment 2227, consideration 7).
In Judgment 3156 the Tribunal held that, in specific cases, a prior authorisation for the dispatching of mass emails could be justified: “The freedom of speech and the freedom of communication [...] are not, however, unlimited. Not only is an organisation entitled to object to misuse of the means of distribution made available to its staff committee [...], but it also follows from the case law [...] that the right to freedom of speech does not encompass action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, or gross abuse of this right and, in particular, damage to the individual interests of certain persons through allusions that are malicious, defamatory or which concern their private lives. [...] Since organisations must prevent such abuse of the right of free speech, the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by bodies representing the staff. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message” (see Judgment 3156, considerations 15 and 16).
As observed earlier, the right to freely associate is a general right that enshrines more specific rights, which are necessary or useful in order to ensure that the right to freely associate is effective. It includes the rights to freedom of communication, information, and speech in all forms, including discussion and debate (see Judgment 3106, considerations 7 and 8). Such rights are vested not only in their authors (usually the staff representatives), but also in the recipients. The right of each staff member to freely associate also includes their right to freely receive communications and information, and their right to listen to speeches. In this perspective, every limitation to the right of staff representatives to send mass emails to the staff members, is also a limitation to the right of the staff members to receive mass emails.
Free communication, information, and speech also imply:
(i) the right to the confidentiality of communication, information, and speech; and
(ii) the right to freely choose the means by which the communications are sent, information is provided, and speeches are given.
An organisation is entitled to issue reasonable guidelines in order to govern the use of the office emails by staff members and staff representatives, and to establish authorised and non-authorised uses. Insofar as the criteria on the use of mass emails are underpinned by general interests, such as those listed in Communiqué No. 10 of 29 March 2006, they shall be considered lawful, as they ensure a reasonable balance between the interests of the organisation and the fundamental rights to free communication, information, and speech, vested in the staff members and their staff unions and representatives. This general balance should not allow a prior supervision or preventive censorship by the organisation on the content of the communications, information, and speech (see Judgment 2227, consideration 7). However, the Tribunal’s case law considers lawful a mechanism of prior authorisation under exceptional circumstances (see Judgment 3156, considerations 15 and 16 quoted in full in consideration 9 [...]).
Staff members and their representatives are not allowed an indiscriminate and unfettered exercise of their rights to freedom of communication, information, and speech. Their “freedom” must be consistent with the duties of the staff members towards the Organisation and towards fellow staff members. Freedom of communication, information, and speech is not freedom to insult or to offend (see Judgment 3106, considerations 7 and 8). The communication, information, and speech fall within the responsibility of their authors. Those that exceed the boundaries of freedom and fail to respect the duties of a staff member or result in insults or offences should be subject to disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.
Whether a communication, information, or speech violates the duty of the staff members can be established only on a case-by-case basis, and, normally, after the communication, information, and speech are divulged.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 911, 2227, 2227, 3106, 3106, 3156, 4482
Keywords:
email; freedom of association; freedom of speech; international instrument; staff representative;
Judgment 4482
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14.
Consideration 12
Extract:
This case presents a situation where a remedy, which may intrude into the exercise of power by the Administrative Council, is appropriate to protect a fundamental right of a member of staff and, indeed, all members of staff which was a term of their appointment as officials of the EPO. The adoption of those parts of the new rules concerning elections by decision CA/D 2/14 entailed non-observance of that term of appointment. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers should enjoy. It is recognised as a right by the Tribunal (see Judgment 4194). It is a right recognised in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Article 2(a), as an obligation for all ILO Member States arising from the very fact of their membership in the ILO. Freedom of association is a right recognised by the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22, and also by the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 8.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4194
Keywords:
compensation; freedom of association; ilo instruments; international instrument; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3726
123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant refers to a number of international conventions. As indicated in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, their terms are only enforceable between the States Parties, but the general principles enshrined therein may also apply to staff relations.
Keywords:
applicable law; international instrument;
Judgment 3434
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that the staff regulations and staff rules of an international organisation are to be interpreted without resort to international instruments. Such instruments bind State Parties.
Keywords:
international instrument; interpretation;
Judgment 3105
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the revised Seat Agreement is an international agreement, [...] the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine in any way its validity. [However] the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the application of a provision of the revised Seat Agreement".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; flaw; headquarters agreement; international instrument; provision; vested competence;
Judgment 2662
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant contends that there was a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. "Reliance on the Convention is misplaced as it is not applicable to international organisations. The complainant's rights are those derived from the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and from the general principles of law applicable to such organisations."
Keywords:
breach; complainant; enforcement; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; organisation; provision; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2292
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Even if "the Member States of the [Organisation] are all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Organisation [...] as such is not a member of the Council of Europe and is not bound by the Convention in the same way as signatory states. Nevertheless, the general principles enshrined in the Convention, particularly the principles of non-discrimination and the protection of property rights, are part of human rights, which, [...] in compliance with the Tribunal's case law, apply to relations with staff."
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; equal treatment; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; member state; organisation's duties; provision; right; rule of another organisation; universal declaration of human rights; working relations;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
A paragraph of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat stipulates that the spouse of a staff member shall normally not be employed in the same department as the staff member. The Tribunal considers that "the provision improperly discriminates between candidates for appointment based on their marital status and family relationship [...]. Discrimination on such grounds is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, general principles of law and those which govern the international civil service, as well as international instruments on human rights. [...] All forms of improper discrimination are prohibited. What is improper discrimination? It is, at least in the employment context, the drawing of distinctions between staff members or candidates for appointment on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Manifestly, the fact that two staff members may be married to each other is not relevant to their competence or the capacity of either one of them to fulfil their obligations. and, if it is thought that marital or intimate personal relationships between staff members may create management problems, such problems must be dealt with in ways that do not discriminate against either of them as a result of such relationships. The Tribunal notes that [the notice] as it is written, besides being too broad, is not even effective in dealing with the presumed possibility of undue influence or favouritism for it is silent on non-marital intimate relationships. It also fails to deal with marriages taking place after appointment".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; international instrument; official; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
Article 15 of Annex 1 to the Eurocontrol Convention says that "the Agency shall be empowered to recruit personnel directly only if the contracting parties are unable to make qualified personnel available to it". The Tribunal holds that the provision "limits the organisation's freedom to recruit by giving priority to candidates prescribed by the contracting parties over 'outside' candidates, but it puts no restrictions on the organisation's freedom to assess the suitability of applicants, wherever they may come from, nor its right to give serving staff a reasonable opportunity of advancement provided that they are as well qualified as other candidates."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 15 OF ANNEX 1 TO THE EUROCONTROL CONVENTION
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; career; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; equal treatment; internal candidate; international instrument; interpretation; legitimate expectation; member state; official; priority; promotion; qualifications;
Judgment 1369
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal must enforce the law within the full ambit of the competence its Statute vests in it. For that purpose it will apply any material rule of law, be it international or administrative or labour law or any other body of law. The only sort it will not apply is national law, save where there is express renvoi thereto in the Staff Regulations or contract of employment: see Judgment 1311 [...], under 15."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1311
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; exception; iloat statute; insurance benefits; international civil service principles; international instrument; law of contract; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1144
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
The complainant, who has objections to his performance report, contends that the EPO's reporting system does not treat all officials on the same basis inasmuch as one group of officials may complete a shortened report and because the system is in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that everyone shall be entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. But the Tribunal considers that "the complainant has not shown that he himself has been adversely affected because staff who belong to another category have [the aforementioned] option." Moreover, "the Convention puts obligations on signatory States, and it is not apparent that it is applicable [...]. At all events, even supposing that the Convention as such was applicable, the Tribunal's answer to the plea would be that the principles underlying Article 6 are fully recognised in the Service Regulations".
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; international instrument; lack of injury; performance report; rating; right to reply;
Judgment 744
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
Under the circumstances, the Tribunal shall be competent to hear the complaint, the complainant being entitled to assert a right granted to him under the headquarters agreement and which accrues to him by virtue of the terms of appointment.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; enforcement; headquarters agreement; international instrument;
Judgment 742
58th Session, 1986
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Where a provision of the Staff Regulations is amended the Tribunal may order the organisation to apply the old text rather than the new one. Likewise, where provisions of the Staff Regulations are replaced by clauses of an international agreement, the Tribunal may order the organisation to apply the former instead of the latter. The Tribunal is therefore competent."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; pension; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"According to customary methods of interpretation any action prescribed in a text is deemed to be of immediate effect. There is no presumption of retroactive effect."
Keywords:
date; effective date; international instrument; interpretation; non-retroactivity;
Judgment 741
58th Session, 1986
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Vide Judgment 742, consideration 7.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 742
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; pension; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Vide Judgment 742, consideration 8.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 742
Keywords:
date; effective date; international instrument; interpretation; non-retroactivity;
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 372
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The privileges at issue derive from the headquarters agreement and have been expressly granted in the interests of the organisation. "Hence, according to the terms of the agreement [...] the privileges granted [...] and now claimed by the complainant were not a personal right, and so could not have been of decisive importance to him when he accepted appointment. Furthermore, he may not rely on an express guarantee in his contract; "new staff members should [...] have realised that the benefits depended" on an agreement with a state which could be amended at any time. He may not rely on an acquired right.
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; headquarters agreement; international instrument; member state; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; provision; terms of appointment;
Judgment 371
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"When the provisions governing the staff of an organisation are embodied in internal rules or in an international agreement, they have been adopted by the representatives of the States members of that organisation and their purpose is to govern conditions in the international civil service. Hence, by analogy, just as the Tribunal may decide not to apply a provision of the Staff Regulations in a particular case, so it may decide not to apply a clause of an international agreement."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; provision;
Judgment 369
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he purpose of the complaint is not to have an international agreement revoked but to secure privileges and, subsidiarily, the payment of financial advantages. It is quite clearly brought against the EPO itself, and not any particular State. It cannot therefore be treated as irreceivable on the grounds that the EPO is not the true defendant."
Keywords:
complaint; international instrument; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Vide Judgment 371, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 371
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; provision;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, considerations 5 and 6.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; headquarters agreement; international instrument; member state; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; provision; terms of appointment;
Judgment 368
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"What the complainants are really seeking is not the revocation of an international agreement but payment of financial benefits by [the organisation]. They have acted correctly in filing their complaints against the [organisation] itself, not against any one state. Hence the plea that the complaints are irreceivable because the [organisation] is not the true defendant must fail."
Keywords:
complaint; international instrument; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 371, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 371
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; provision;
Judgment 366
41st Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainants take exception, not to the conclusion of the integration agreement, but to the application of some of its provisions. since those provisions are the same in kind as the Staff Regulations of an organisation there is no bar to the complainants' appealing to the Tribunal against the application of those provisions: according to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal hears 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations [...].'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; merger; provision;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Where a provision of the Staff Regulations is amended the Tribunal may order the defendant organisation to apply the old text and not the new. So, too, when provisions of staff regulations are amended so as to comply with clauses in an international agreement(*) the Tribunal may order the application of the former rather than the latter" and is therefore competent. (*) which provides for the IPI's integration in the EPO
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; enforcement; international instrument; merger; provision; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
