Contract (292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686, 309, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 648, 654, 671,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Contract
Total judgments found: 428
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he Commission breached its own rules regarding the procedure by which the performance appraisal report, which contained the recommendation for the extension of the contract, was to be communicated to the Personnel Division. Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2) requires the proposal for the extension of the contract to be submitted to the Personnel Division with a justification of the recommendation that was stated in the proposal. The performance appraisal report was also to be submitted with them.
There are good reasons for this provision. The proposal containing the recommendation, the justification of the recommendation and the performance appraisal report, submitted together, is intended to provide a complete picture of the performance of a staff member. This in turn is to inform a decision which that Division, the PAP or the Executive Secretary may have been required to make."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2)
Keywords:
contract; enforcement; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"These facts were significant as they highlight the need for reasons in this case because these circumstances impacted the complainant’s ability to assess whether he should have accepted the offer of the one-year extension of his contract and whether he should challenge the decision.
It is also significant that the complainant was reminded of the deadline [...], when he had not yet received the explanation. Additionally, it was in the letter [...], which included the explanation, that the Executive Secretary informed the complainant that his contract would expire [...] because he had failed to accept the offer of extension. The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to offer the one-year extension to the complainant was flawed by the failure of the Administration to provide a timely explanation for that decision."
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duration of appointment; extension of contract; flaw; notice; offer; termination of employment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; discretion; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; performance report; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is a general principle applied by this Tribunal that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see Judgment 2414, consideration 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414
Keywords:
contract; decision; fixed-term; grounds; patere legem; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3159
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Considerations 9, 19 and 20
Extract:
"The terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 are clear. They impose a duty on the Organization in specified circumstances. The duty is to use reasonable efforts to reassign a staff member whose post is being abolished. The specified circumstances are, as to a staff member on a fixed-term appointment, that the staff member has served “for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more”. The expression “continuous and uninterrupted” fairly emphatically focuses attention on service of a particular character. There is no basis in the language of the Staff Rule to treat its operation as ambulatory in the sense that a person who has been on a fixed-term appointment but has not served in that capacity for a continuous and uninterrupted period of at least five years is nonetheless a person to whom the Organization, by operation of the Rule, is under a duty to make reasonable efforts to reassign. [...] However, a staff rule cast in terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 does not preclude the possibility that the Organization is under a duty requiring proactive conduct in circumstances not comprehended by the Rule itself. WHO does not put in issue that there is a general duty of loyalty, as the complainant contends. What might be required of an organisation in broadly similar circumstances was considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902. [...] The same reasoning can be applied in the present case. The complainant and WHO found it mutually acceptable, and with benefits accruing to both, for the complainant to be employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment. But the complainant nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization. In those circumstances, WHO was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1050.2
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
Keywords:
abolition of post; contract; duration of appointment; enforcement; fixed-term; general principle; intention of parties; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
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 3112
113th Session, 2012
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
"As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 3110
113th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment 3090
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may rule on any employment relationship arising between an organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. (See Judgment 1272, under 9.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; official; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; terms of appointment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[WIPO's] employment relationship with the complainant always rested on short-term contracts [...]. These contracts were systematically renewed without any notable breaks, with the result that [...] the complainant pursued a career in the Organization for more than seven years, i.e. until the expiry of [her last] contract. This long succession of short-term contracts gave rise to a legal relationship between the complainant and WIPO which was equivalent to that on which permanent staff members of an organisation may rely. In considering that the complainant belonged to the category of short-term employees to whom the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules do not apply and who do not enjoy legal protection comparable to that enjoyed by other staff members, the defendant failed to recognise the real nature of its legal relationship with the complainant. In so doing it committed an error of law and misused the rules governing short-term contracts."
Keywords:
abuse of power; applicable law; career; contract; difference; extension of contract; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; temporary-indefinite; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3086
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The European Patent Office paid the full amount of the costs occasioned by the complainant's move from Germany to France after he retired. The complainant emphasises that the removal firm did not do its work properly and caused him material injury. In his opinion, the EPO has incurred liability, particularly because it had urged him to place the move in the hands of that firm.
"[W]hen an international organisation defrays the removal expenses of an official or former official, it does not follow that it becomes a party to the contract between the person concerned and the removal firm. Neither of the parties to this private law contract acts on behalf of the organisation. For the latter, the contract is res inter alios. This is all the more understandable given that it has no means of ascertaining whether the contract has been performed satisfactorily or, if necessary, of establishing the damage resulting from faulty performance."
Keywords:
contract; liability; material injury; organisation; payment; procedural flaw; removal expenses; retirement;
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 3054
112th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint dismissed; contract; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 3026
111th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Failure on the part of the Organisation to give the complainant a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement prior to deciding not to renew his fixed-term contract for unsatisfactory performance.
"It must be assumed that until 2006 the complainant's work was satisfactory as his contract was renewed from time to time, albeit that he was not subject to performance appraisal during the period he was employed on temporary assistance contracts."
Keywords:
appointment; complainant; contract; performance report; period; satisfactory service; short-term; work appraisal;
Judgment 3010
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of contract following restructuring / Failure by the Organization to consult the joint advisory body (Appointment and Promotion Board) prior to terminating the complainant's contract .
"[T]he purpose of a provision requiring referral of the proposed termination of a contract to an advisory body is, as stated in Judgment 2352, 'to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head'".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2352
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; contract; decision; executive head; provision; purpose; recommendation; termination of employment;
Judgment 3005
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Rejection of a request for conversion of a fixed-term appointment to a permanent one.
"In Judgment 1349, under 11, the Tribunal noted the wide discretion an organisation enjoys in relation to the decision to convert a fixed-term appointment to a permanent one. Given the highly discretionary nature of the decision, it is subject to limited review and will only be set aside 'if it is taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it is based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2694, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2694
Keywords:
appointment; contract; decision; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; permanent appointment;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 2986
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
"While the terms of a contract and some decisions will in principle give rise to acquired rights, this is not necessarily true of [the] provisions [of the Staff Regulations and Rules]."
Keywords:
acquired right; consequence; contract; decision; difference; effect; general principle; provision; staff regulations and rules;
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;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It was recognised in Judgment 666 that 'an allowance may form an essential part of the official's contract [...] and its abolition would therefore constitute breach of [an] acquired right'. However, it was also said in that case that an official 'has no acquired right to the actual amount of the allowance or to continuance of any particular method of reckoning it. Indeed, he must expect these to change as circumstances change'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 666
Keywords:
acquired right; allowance; amount; contract; night differential; payment; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2926
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
"The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;
Judgment 2919
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Absent a connection flowing from a contract or deriving from employment status, the Tribunal is not competent to entertain the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; external collaborator; ratione personae;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, an organisation may not in good faith end someone's appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[E]ven though notification of non-renewal is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute [...]. Accordingly, it may be challenged in the same way as any other administrative decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 2573
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice; right of appeal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
