Breach (235,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Breach
Total judgments found: 168

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

• Judgment 3128

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "The complainant is [...] entitled to moral damages in the amount of 5,000 [Swiss] francs for the failure of the Executive Board to provide reasons for its decision to reject his appeal."

  Keywords:

  breach; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeal; moral injury; refusal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3127

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Centre for the Development of Enterprise
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."

  Keywords:

  breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3126

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Free Trade Association
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
  "This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3115

  
  113th Session, 2012
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3106

  
  113th Session, 2012
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100
  

  Keywords:

  breach; competence; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3084

  
  112th Session, 2012
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3074

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Meteorological Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15-16

  Extract:

  "[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
  [M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3073

  
  112th Session, 2012
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "According to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body's alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3065

  
  112th Session, 2012
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 7-8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3039

  
  111th Session, 2011
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2064, under 5, performance reports continue to be useful even if deadlines have not been respected, and failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports. However, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064
  

  Keywords:

  breach; condition; consequence; delay; judicial review; performance report; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3035

  
  111th Session, 2011
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  The complainant was suspended from duty on 4 September 2008.
  "The Tribunal finds that, in maintaining the complainant's suspension by his decision of 6 July 2009, the Director General extended the duration of this suspension beyond the reasonable limit accepted by the case law and thus caused the complainant moral and professional injury."

  Keywords:

  breach; case law; cause; date; executive head; extension of contract; injury; moral injury; professional injury; reasonable time; suspension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3020

  
  111th Session, 2011
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
  
  

  Keywords:

  allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3003

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

  Consideration 30

  Extract:

  "To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  breach; case law; complainant; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; grounds; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2985

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

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2459, under 9, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; provision; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2973

  
  110th Session, 2011
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  "By failing to deal with the informal complaints in a manner consistent with its own policy, by failing to conduct an investigation in a timely manner when a formal complaint was filed and then by terminating the investigation, WHO breached its duty of care toward the complainant and caused her serious injury."

  Keywords:

  breach; claim; duty of care; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; written rule;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
  "[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2972

  
  110th Session, 2011
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Existence of an acquired right to work night shifts and to receive the corresponding allowance.
  "An acquired right is breached when 'an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on' (see Judgment 2682, under 6)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2682
  

  Keywords:

  acceptance; acquired right; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; contract; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2959

  
  110th Session, 2011
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "[T]he existence of an established practice of directly appointing the Chief of Cabinet is not relevant, as a practice which is in violation of a rule cannot have the effect of modifying the rule itself, and the fact that employees may be aware of such a practice does not prevent them from exercising their right to impugn a decision based on that practice whenever it affects them."

  Keywords:

  breach; practice; precedence of rules; provision; right of appeal; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2944

  
  109th Session, 2010
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 48

  Extract:

  "[B]reaches of private financial obligations on the part of international civil servants are incompatible with the rules of conduct by which they must abide (see, for example Judgments 53, under 7, 1480, under 3, or 1584, under 9)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 1480, 1584
  

  Keywords:

  breach; conduct; debt; misconduct; staff member's duties; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2936

  
  109th Session, 2010
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "[T]rifling differences in the respective situations of staff members do not justify different treatment where the people concerned are in what may be regarded as comparable, albeit not identical positions vis-à-vis the rule applying to them [...]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 792, 2066
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; breach; difference; equal treatment; general principle; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2935

  
  109th Session, 2010
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The complainant claims punitive damages. This claim may be summarily dismissed because it is tantamount to asking the Tribunal to make an example of the Organisation by obliging it to pay compensation exceeding the material and moral injury actually suffered by the complainant. Such a claim may be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation's conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith."

  Keywords:

  breach; compensation; good faith; material damages;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >