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

Application for execution (5,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Application for execution
Total judgments found: 94

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 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; complaint allowed; 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;

    Consideration 26

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal, which has the power to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that its judgments are executed, may, if it considers it appropriate, order the payment of a penalty for default (see, for example, Judgments 1620, under 10, or 2806, under 11). In the present case, the patent lack of goodwill demonstrated by [the organisation] to date with regard to honouring its obligation to pay the awards made against it justifies the imposition of a penalty, as requested by the complainant, of 25,000 euros for each month's delay in the settlement of the awards made in this judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 2806

    Keywords:

    application for execution; complaint allowed; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for execution; complaint allowed; icj; moral injury;



  • Judgment 3114


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    A year and a half passed following the recommendations before a final decision was reached, and that decision was obtained only after the complainant had lodged an application for execution with the Tribunal. "This delay is manifestly unreasonable. The complainant will be awarded an indemnity, which it is fair to set at 2,000 euros, for the moral injury she has thus been caused."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; allowance; application for execution; compensation; complaint allowed; decision; internal appeals body; moral injury; reasonable time; recommendation;



  • Judgment 3066


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, there is no standard time limit for executing judgments. The time needed for their execution depends on the nature and the scope of the action which the organisation is required to take and it must be allowed a reasonable amount of time depending on the circumstances and, among other things, the interests at stake. Where a judgment provides that a case is sent back to an organisation for a new decision, the time needed depends on the circumstances of the particular case. (See, in particular, Judgment 1812, under 4.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1812, 2837

    Keywords:

    application for execution; execution of judgment;



  • Judgment 3013


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The obligation to pay compound interest is always an exception. According to the Tribunal's case law, such an obligation must arise from the operative part of its judgments. In this case, to quote the language of consideration 4 of Judgment 802, "if the Tribunal had meant compound interest, [...] it would have used words to that effect"."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 802

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case law; consequence; exception; interest on damages; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment;



  • Judgment 2988


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Application for execution of Judgment 2786.
    "[A]n organisation has a duty to calculate staff salaries and benefits in accordance with its regulations and rules. This applies equally to the calculation of the amount due for salary and benefits pursuant to a judgment of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for execution; execution of judgment; payment; salary;



  • Judgment 2889


    108th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 7

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the Tribunal's case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see, for instance, Judgment 1887, under 8). An exception must, however, be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887

    Keywords:

    application for execution; date; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 2880


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Application for execution of Judgment 2706 - In Judgment 2706 the Tribunal ordered the Organization inter alia to review the classification of the complainant's post and, if appropriate, to promote her. As a result of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years, the complainant was not promoted. The Tribunal granted the application for execution and ordered that the application for promotion be properly considered.
    "The Tribunal [...] wishes to clarify [...] the meaning of the phrase "le cas échéant" in the authoritative French text of its orders in Judgment 2706. Having regard to the context in which it is used and the instructions given by the Tribunal in Judgment 2706, under 15, it is clear that the order means that "if the required conditions are met" or "in such a case" the complainant is to be promoted. That is, the Director General is to base his decision on relevant materials, namely the proposals of the Classification Committee and the Promotion Advisory Board."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706

    Keywords:

    application for execution; order; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 2721


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal again emphasises that it is essential that both salaries and pensions be paid punctually and in full, if only on account of the precise commitments which beneficiaries may have to honour on a daily basis (see Judgment 2381, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2381

    Keywords:

    application for execution; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; organisation's duties; payment; pension; salary;



  • Judgment 2533


    101st Session, 2006
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant suffered a workplace injury at the Organization premises. The results of this seemingly minor accident were catastrophic and the complainant is now permanently and totally disabled and suffers from a rare illness, which has extended up both of the complainant's legs and requires him to use a wheelchair.

    "The absence of an indexation clause [of the "disability pension"], however, does not remove the defendant's obligation to provide the complainant with adequate compensation. The concern that the utility of the award may be reduced through spoliation is very real and could, in times of high inflation, conceivably, have the effect of negating the very purpose of the disability pension which is to make the complainant whole despite his service-related injury. That is only a possibility, however, and the Tribunal is reluctant to order indexation as a matter of routine when the feared spoliation may never occur to an extent significant enough to seriously affect the complainant's position. Exceptionally, the Tribunal will frame its order in such a way that the complainant may apply at a future date for an adjustment to any ongoing pension payments when and if the purchasing power of such payments has been reduced by at least 10 per cent. Such applications should be by way of request for the execution of the present judgment."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; application for execution; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; cost-of-living increase; disability benefit; handicapped person; invalidity; organisation's duties; professional accident; reckoning; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 2458


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 7

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
    The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189

    Keywords:

    application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2327


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Internal debates and discussions in the [executive body of an international organisation] are irrelevant to [the organisation's] obligation faithfully and promptly to execute the Tribunal's judgments."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; effect; execution of judgment; executive body; judgment of the tribunal; suspensory effects; time limit;



  • Judgment 2304


    96th Session, 2004
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246

    Keywords:

    application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2277


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3 (a)

    Extract:

    "An application for execution presupposes that the complainant is able to challenge an act or an omission by the organisation that employs him which is subsequent to the judgment concerned and contrary to the terms of the ruling. [T]he complainant [...] merely reiterates pleas and facts which preceded the judgments [of which he seeks execution], which are now res judicata and cannot be challenged."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; decision; omission; organisation's duties; res judicata;



  • Judgment 2185


    94th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal gave the organisation the choice between reinstating the complainant or paying her a compensation. "The organization clearly chose not to reinstate the complainant. Consequently, the complainant's claim for reinstatement is irreceivable. It should also be noted that since [the organization] applied the second option of [that] judgment [...] to the complainant, she cannot seek to benefit from the first option as well."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1553

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for execution; claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; enforcement; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reinstatement;



  • Judgment 2178


    94th Session, 2003
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal ordered that he be compensated because he had been wrongfully terminated. In his application for review of that judgment "the complainant seeks compensation in respect of the loss of the tax immunities he enjoyed by virtue of the agreement between the [...] authorities [of the host country] and the [organisation]. Since the complainant has not been reinstated in his post, he is no longer entitled to those immunities. Nor is he entitled to compensation for the loss thereof: the tax regime governing the exemptions he may claim is solely a matter for the competent authorities of the host state, and the [organisation] cannot be held liable for direct or indirect taxes owed by the complainant."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for execution; domestic law; headquarters agreement; judgment of the tribunal; privileges and immunities; reconstruction of career; reinstatement; request by a party; tax;

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    The complainant filed an application for execution less than two months after the judgment on his first complaint was delivered. "The haste with which he came to the Tribunal is all the more regrettable for the fact that the discussions taking place between the parties could have enabled them, if not to reach an agreement, then at least to clarify certain aspects of the case which remain uncertain [...]. The Federation raises the question of whether under these circumstances the application for execution is receivable. However, the Tribunal's case law shows a constant line of precedent on this issue: any serious difficulty concerning the execution of a judgment can validly be brought before the Tribunal by means of an application for execution. In the present case, it is to be regretted that the difficulties could not be overcome by the parties through discussion in good faith, but the Federation may not object to the receivability of the complainant's application."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case law; condition; execution of judgment; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2065


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    "In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2016


    90th Session, 2001
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As emphasised by the [organisation], the applicable interim Staff Rules provide that the education grant is calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. The complainant cannot therefore claim grants calculated on the hypothetical basis of the costs that would have been incurred had he remained in service."

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for execution; burden of proof; condition; education expenses; evidence; family allowance;



  • Judgment 1978


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The case law has it that the exhaustion of all internal remedies is not necessary before filing an application for execution. However, the possibility of direct recourse to the Tribunal does not exclude first lodging an internal appeal (see Judgment 1887, [...] under 5, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case law; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "An application for execution may only address issues covered by the initial judgment, which carries the authority of res judicata (see Judgment 1887 [...] under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887

    Keywords:

    application for execution; general principle; res judicata; same cause of action;



  • Judgment 1892


    88th Session, 2000
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment sending the case back to the organisation for a new ruling on his appeal [...] must be disallowed because the [...] procedure necessitated by the judgment quashing the original decision was [...] implemented swiftly." [After a new recommendation by the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Director General rejected the complainant's new internal appeal three and a half months after the Tribunal's judgment that was then made the subject of an application for execution.]

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; delay; execution of judgment; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; remand; time limit;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organisation. The Tribunal considers that "it was appropriate to resume the procedure by referring the matter back to the Joint Committee for Disputes because it was the unlawful nature of the latter's opinion that led to the quashing of the decision. However, proper execution of the judgment did not necessarily imply recognition that the complainant's appeal was sound: all that was required was a new decision taken after due process."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; execution of judgment; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand; report;



  • Judgment 1887


    87th Session, 1999
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Application for the execution of a previous judgment.
    "The Tribunal's case law has it that exhausting all internal remedies is not in fact necessary in cases which involve determining whether the authority responsible for executing a judgment has respected its terms. It is however in principle essential when a case is sent back to that authority to resume or continue the procedure and when the judgment leaves it a degree of discretion. However, with a view to avoiding a sheer pedantic approach, the Tribunal will waive the requirement for exhaustion of internal remedies where no legal purpose is served, for example where the case is fit to be judged and the parties have submitted their pleas (see Judgment 1771 [...] and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case law; case sent back to organisation; cause; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top