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

Locus standi (55, 71, 73, 74, 673,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Locus standi
Total judgments found: 87

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

  • Judgment 4120


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to communicate to him an investigation report concerning the payment of school fees to another employee.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Staff representatives have a legitimate and important role in the functioning of international organisations. However there are limits to that role, at least as may involve rights enforceable in proceedings in the Tribunal. In its reasoning the IAC referred to Judgment 2919 of this Tribunal in support of a widely cast role for staff representatives. However, the effect of that judgment may have been misunderstood and, in any event, the Tribunal has recently indicated that Judgment 2919, if read too widely, went beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s established jurisprudence (see Judgment 3515, consideration 3). In the present case, whether Article 120(a) of the Service Regulations had been applied correctly or incorrectly to the individual the subject of the internal audit was not a matter in respect of which the complainant had an interest capable of being pursued in a complaint to this Tribunal. Nor did the complainant have an enforceable right to obtain the results of the internal audit. Accordingly the complainant has no cause of action and his complaint in the Tribunal is irreceivable (see Judgment 3426, consideration 16). Thus, the complaint should be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3426, 3515

    Keywords:

    cause of action; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3921


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    As to the complainant’s right to maintain these proceedings on behalf of the staff of the Global Fund in his capacity as a member of the Staff Council, there is some support for the proposition he can do so in earlier jurisprudence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 5). However that judgment does not reflect the Tribunal’s current case law (see, for example, Judgments 3515, consideration 3, and 3642, considerations 9 to 12 and 14). The adoption of the new arrangements in relation to salary structure and grading system was a general decision requiring implementation for each staff member. That general decision cannot be challenged by an individual staff member even if that individual is a member of the staff committee unless and until the general decision is implemented. That is not to say, it cannot be challenged when implemented by challenging a payslip that reflects its implementation. A recent example concerned a salary freeze where the complainants were able to challenge the general decision by challenging its implementation in a payslip. While the general decision to freeze salaries was not immediately reflected in the payslips (the complainants’ salaries remained the same and the freeze would only operate in the future), the Tribunal was able to conclude, in that case, that the general decision as implemented in the payslips was liable to cause injury because the decision to freeze salaries would necessarily negatively impact on the salaries in due course (see Judgment 3740, consideration 11). Nonetheless, as a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3168, 3515, 3642, 3740

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; individual decision; locus standi; scale; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3653


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    There is [...] no provision under which the Tribunal is competent to hear the claim concerning the complainant’s non-selection for the post [...]. As he was not selected for the post, he did not become a WFP staff member from that application and therefore obtained no right to lodge an internal appeal under Staff Regulation 301.11.1 to challenge the non-selection. Because of his non-selection, he had not entered into a contractual relationship with the WFP. Accordingly, by virtue of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute, he has no standing to bring a claim before the Tribunal alleging the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. This position was explained in Judgment 1509, consideration 16 [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3642


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to fill an Administrative Assistant position.

    Considerations 9-12

    Extract:

    The jurisprudence of the Tribunal on the standing of elected staff representatives to take proceedings before the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not uniformly clear. Recently in Judgment 3557, consideration 3, the Tribunal indicated that in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, but can only do so if they allege breach of their own individual rights. In another recent case, Judgment 3546, the Tribunal concluded it was unnecessary to consider whether a staff representative had standing generally to challenge the extension of the appointment of another official because the complainant, who was a staff representative, had had a right to be advised of the proposal to extend the appointment and that right had been allegedly violated. That was viewed as sufficient to give the complainant standing.
    On the other hand, the right of a staff representative to file a complaint challenging the appointment of an official has been recognised as an aspect of the right of an elected staff representative to bring proceedings on behalf of a staff committee with a view to preserving common rights and interests of staff (see Judgment 2791, consideration 2, and Judgment 2755, consideration 6).
    However ultimately, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the related question of a person’s right to invoke that jurisdiction should be determined by reference to the Tribunal’s Statute. Article II addresses both questions. The Tribunal is conferred with jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials of the International Labour Office and other organisations which have submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as well as complaints alleging non-observance of such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations as are applicable to the case. Having identified and defined the jurisdiction, Article II identifies in paragraph 6, the class or classes of people who can invoke that jurisdiction. That paragraph provides that “[t]he Tribunal shall be open […] to the official” and to any person to whom the “official’s rights have devolved” on death together with any other person entitled to some right of a deceased official. A legal normative document conferring jurisdiction on a court should not be narrowly construed. However there is little room to doubt that the expression “shall be open to the official” is a reference to the official whose terms of appointment have allegedly not been observed or, in relation to whose circumstances (in “a case”), applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations have allegedly not been observed. This is reinforced by the reference to “the official’s rights”, in the singular, in relation to rights that have devolved on death. That is to say, standing is directed to the vindication or enforcement of the rights of an individual officer. The clause does not cast the net any wider in relation to who can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
    Similarly in Article VIII, dealing with remedies, the focus of the Article is the provision of relief or a remedy to an individual complainant on the assumption that the relief or remedy will overcome the effect or consequences on that complainant of the non-observance by either undoing the effect of the defendant organisation’s conduct (by rescission) or the payment of compensation to the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2755, 2791, 3546, 3557

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative; successor;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It might be thought all officials have a “right” to have the organisation which employs them comply with and observe the organisation’s Staff Regulations irrespective of whether any failure to comply or non-observance has any bearing on their own situation as an official of the organisation. If this were so, all officials would have standing to commence proceedings in the Tribunal in relation to any non-observance of the Staff Regulations. It is highly improbable that the Statute intended this result. But is an elected staff representative able to enforce this “right” even though all other officials cannot unless affected by the non-observance? There is no basis in the language or structure of the Statute or by reference to the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal, to suggest this is so. Consistent with the entire focus of the Statute, the right of an elected representative to enforce the Staff Regulations for the benefit of all staff is limited to circumstances where the provision (which has allegedly not been observed) confers a right on the elected representative as a member of staff. It might be a right limited to the staff representative (such as the right to be consulted) or it might be a right enjoyed by all staff (such as the right to freedom of association).

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3557


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "It is obvious that the complainant does not have standing to submit such a claim. He does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. While in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, in so doing they must allege a breach of their own individual rights, which might include, for example, the right to be consulted (see, for example, Judgments 2236, under 4, and 3449, under 4) or the right to compete for the post (see, for example, Judgment 2755, under 6). In the present case, the complainant does not clearly articulate any violation of his rights as a member of the selection board."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2236, 2755, 3449

    Keywords:

    locus standi; selection board; staff representative;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]o the extent that the complainant appears to be seeking to defend the general interest of the staff in having that particular vacancy filled by a lawful procedure, not only does he not have standing to do so either individually or as a member of a group, he also has a conflict of interest. Indeed, given that he participated in the selection process, he could not have been – even theoretically – a candidate for that vacancy. His claim is therefore clearly irreceivable as he lacks locus standi to bring it."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3546


    120th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the principle of extending the active service of a staff member beyond the age of 65 and the terms thereof.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is unnecessary to determine whether the complainant’s status as a staff representative in itself gives him a cause of action to challenge the administrative decisions at issue in this case. Indeed, the Tribunal notes that, at the material time, he was a member of the Joint Negotiating Committee, and in his complaint he alleges a breach of the Office’s duty, under Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations, to inform that Committee of any decision to retain an official at a grade equal to or higher than P.5 in active service beyond the normal retirement age. Insofar as he thus alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which he himself was a member, the complainant has cause of action which gives him standing to bring this complaint (see, for example, Judgment 2036, under 4, and Judgment 3053, as well as the analysis thereof in Judgment 3291, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2036, 3053, 3291

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative;

    Considerations 12-15

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal considers that the complainant has no cause of action entitling him to ask the Tribunal to order the ILO to reimburse the UNJSPF with the sums which it did not receive in respect of the extension of Ms D.’s appointment.
    It must first be noted that, contrary to his submissions, his status as an official participating in an individual capacity in the UNJSPF does not give him a cause of action in this respect, since the fact that contributions to the Fund were not made in respect of another official’s appointment has no impact on his own situation. The complainant cannot therefore legitimately claim such reimbursement by the Organization. Nor indeed would he be entitled to request that the official herself be ordered to repay sums which she might have received in error (see Judgments 2281, under 4(a) and(b), and 3206, under 20). The complainant’s reference to Judgment 1330, concerning a decision which, on the contrary, affected the pension rights of the complainants themselves, is of no relevance here.
    Neither can the complainant derive a cause of action, in this connection, from his status as a staff representative. Although he invokes the general interest in safeguarding the financial interests of the UNJSPF, or in ensuring that the Office’s governance rules are strictly observed, such an interest, however legitimate it might be, cannot in itself be regarded as one which the Tribunal is competent to protect.
    In addition, the contention that the benefits enjoyed by Ms D. during the disputed period might have jeopardized respect for other officials’ pension rights by compromising the financial equilibrium of the UNJSPF must plainly fail, having regard to the amounts in question and the size of the Fund’s budget.
    Since the Office’s special treatment of Ms D. does not have any direct and immediate impact on the terms of employment or the rights of other officials, the complainant has no standing to bring the above-mentioned claim in his capacity as a member of the Staff Union Committee (see, for cases raising similar issues, Judgments 3342, under 9 to 12, and 3343, under 2 to 5).
    For the same reasons, the complainant has no standing to bring that claim in his capacity as a participants’ representative in the ILO Staff Pension Committee, on which he likewise relies."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 2281, 3206, 3342, 3343

    Keywords:

    cause of action; locus standi; unjspf;



  • Judgment 3515


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, in their capacity as staff representatives, impugn the decision to pay a collective reward to permanent or contract employees in active service during 2011.

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaints. It does so on the basis that the complainants were challenging a decision of general application that had not been individually and prejudicially applied to them. It refers, in particular, to Judgment 1852, consideration 2, and Judgment 3291, consideration 8, and quotes passages from each. It also refers to Judgments 61, 92, 103 and 622.
    In their rejoinder, the complainants refer to Judgment 1147, consideration 4, Judgment 1618, consideration 7, Judgment 2649, consideration 8, Judgment 2791, consideration 2, and Judgment 2919, consideration 5, in support of the proposition that a staff committee member can challenge a general decision which adversely affects staff or groups of staff. Also, and more specifically, they argue that even if a staff representative cannot challenge the substantive provisions of a general decision, the representative is always in a position to challenge a breach of procedure.
    The complaints are irreceivable. The general decision in CA/D 17/12 is plainly a decision that would have required implementation. When that occurred staff aggrieved by the implementation could have pursued their grievances internally with the possibility, if the grievance was unresolved, of pursuing it before the Tribunal. However a staff representative cannot challenge a general decision governing all officials which will require individual implementing decisions. Judgment 3427 (at considerations 35 and 36) is a recent illustration of a case in which complaints were dismissed as irreceivable on this basis. To the extent that Judgment 2919 (which the complainants rely upon), indicates otherwise, it is at odds with the general jurisprudence of the Tribunal. There is a an oblique reference in the complainants’ pleas that there had not been proper consultation with the General Advisory Committee (GAC) and this is said to render the complaints receivable or at least the complaint of Mr T., who was a member of the GAC. However that issue was not raised in the internal application for review and cannot be raised in the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1618, 1852, 2649, 2791, 2919, 3291, 3427

    Keywords:

    cause of action; locus standi; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3462


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint, clearly irreceivable, is summarily dismissed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; locus standi; outsourcing; summary procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal recently had an opportunity to clarify the conditions under which an official can challenge the decision regarding the outsourcing of certain functions. The Tribunal found that it followed from Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute that an official may challenge before the Tribunal the outsourcing of certain tasks only to the extent that such outsourcing has a direct adverse impact on the rights conferred on the official by her/his terms of appointment (see Judgment 3376, under 3). This condition is clearly not satisfied in the present case as the complainant does not even attempt to explain how the outsourcing in question or the centralization process he challenges before the Tribunal has a direct adverse effect on him or on the rights conferred upon him by his terms of appointment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3376

    Keywords:

    general decision; locus standi; outsourcing;



  • Judgment 3450


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Moreover, “[a]s the Tribunal has consistently held, any staff member who is eligible to occupy a post has cause of action in seeking the setting aside of the decision to give that post to another person, irrespective of his or her real chances of successful appointment to the post in question” (see Judgment 3206, under 11, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3206

    Keywords:

    cause of action; locus standi;



  • Judgment 3449


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant also acted in his capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee of the Office. According to the case law, members of a staff committee may bring a complaint to preserve common rights and interests, these being understood to mean enforceable legal rights and interests derived from terms of appointment or under Staff Regulations which have not necessarily been breached in respect of the member of the staff committee who files a complaint with the Tribunal.
    In order for a complaint submitted on behalf of a staff committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which an organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected to it by an employment contract or who have the status of officials. This condition is a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 3342, under 10, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3342

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; locus standi; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3427


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.

    Considerations 35-36

    Extract:

    As concerns the complaints brought by staff members in their respective staff representative capacities, the determinative issue centres on the nature of the contested decisions. In Judgment 1451, under 20, and later in Judgment 1618, under 5, the Tribunal drew a distinction between “a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service” that “take the form of individual implementing decisions” that each employee may later challenge and those decisions that do not give rise to implementing decisions and involve matters of common concern to all staff. In the latter case a challenge to the general decision by a staff representative may be receivable.
    However, in the present case, it is clear that the contested decisions are decisions of general application subject to individual implementation. Until a decision of general application is implemented it cannot be said to have been applied in a prejudicial manner to a staff member and, consequently, as has been consistently held, cannot be attacked (see Judgment 2822, under 6, citing Judgment 1852). The fact of filing their complaints in their staff representative capacities does not overcome the fact of the nature of the contested decisions being ones of general application that at the material time had not been implemented. Accordingly, the complaints filed by the staff members in their representative capacities are irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618, 1852, 2822

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; locus standi; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3420


    119th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has examined its competence ratione personae of its own motion since, when the complaint was filed [...], the complainant was formally described in his employment contract as a “consultant”, a term often used for external collaborators. In the complaint form, the complainant calls himself a staff member. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable since 1 January 2012 use the terms “staff members” and “staff” indiscriminately and that WIPO describes the complainant as a temporary employee on a short-term contract. The Tribunal finds that WIPO has consistently treated the complainant as a staff member. It is clear from the evidence that his contract provided for the payment of a salary, that he was subject to the disciplinary procedure – which was actually applied to him – and that he had access to internal appeal bodies. Moreover, WIPO admits that it has outsourced duties previously exercised by the complainant, which clearly shows that they were previously regarded as being performed internally. The Tribunal is therefore competent ratione personae to hear this case. Indeed, it had already implicitly accepted that it was competent to hear the complainant’s previous complaints."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; official; ratione personae; short-term; staff member; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3359


    118th Session, 2014
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, former judges of the ICC, impugn the implied decision of the Assembly of States Parties not to determine to which Pension Scheme they were subjected.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal rejects the complainants’ assertions of standing by reference to the ICC Staff Regulations. It is not disputed that the judges are “officials” of the ICC as stated in the ICC Headquarters Agreement. However, the broad definition of “officials” does not assist the complainants’ position in relation to the Staff Regulations."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; official; staff regulations and rules;

    Considerations 16 and 17

    Extract:

    "[T]he ICC does not dispute that the complainants are officials of the Court and that it has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, the ICC contends that since Staff Regulation 11.2 limits access to the Tribunal to staff members, the complainants do not have standing to bring the present complaint.
    In effect, the ICC is arguing that the judges are without recourse for alleged violations of the terms and conditions of their appointment. This argument is rejected. The complainants are officials and their rights are not constrained by the Staff Regulations. Their right to access the Tribunal is conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute itself."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; official;



  • Judgment 3346


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as Staff Committee representatives in the General Advisory Committee, challenge the President’s interpretation of the GAC’s opinion regarding pension contributions.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "As the legal analysis of receivability, merit and damages associated with a claim are inextricably linked to standing, complainants cannot adopt a different position on standing from the one initially taken on the internal appeal."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3345


    118th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as elected staff representatives, in their individual capacities as staff members and on behalf of thirty-six staff members employed under “long-term short-term contracts”, challenge the appropriateness of employment under such contracts and claim certain rights for such employees.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; locus standi; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3343


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, acting as a staff representative, challenges the Organisation’s direct placement of a contract with an external consulting firm.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; locus standi; outsourcing; plenary judgment; staff representative;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Unless it can be shown that the alleged violation of the rule has a direct and immediate bearing on the employment status or rights of employees, the staff representative does not have standing to bring the complaint. In this case there is no such violation. It follows that in her capacity as a staff representative, the complainant clearly does not have standing to bring this complaint."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative;

    Considerations 2 and 3

    Extract:

    "On the issue of receivability, the complainant takes the position that she is acting to protect the collective interests of the staff. She contends that these interests are not limited to matters such as remuneration and other working conditions, but also include the broader interest of ensuring that the EPO respects its own laws. She claims that other than staff representatives, there is nobody either within or outside the EPO in a position to challenge a direct placement.
    It is clear that this complaint is irreceivable and it will be dismissed. Chapter 2 of Title II of the Service Regulations provides a mechanism for staff representation at the EPO including the establishment of a Staff Committee, its functions (Article 34), composition (Article 35) and competence (Article 36). However, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2649, under 8, “in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the [EPO] by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2649

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3342


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as members of the Staff Committee, challenge the competence of the President of the Office to appoint Vice-Presidents on an ad interim basis.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The common rights and interests identified by the complainants may arguably be legitimate interests in a broad political or organisational sense. However they are not rights or interests of a character that are justiciable in the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative;

    Considerations 10 and 11

    Extract:

    "Earlier judgments decide[d] that members of a Staff Committee can invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to enforce rights conferred on them by their terms of appointment or by the Service Regulations. So much is clear from Judgment 1147, consideration 4. This has been recognised in a number of judgments since which have accepted that individual officials can act as representatives to preserve what have been described as “common rights and interests” (see Judgment 2562, consideration 10). However the expression “common rights and interests” is a reference to enforceable legal rights and interests derived from terms of appointment or under the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2649, consideration 8, “in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employment status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”. A similar statement of the principle is found in Judgment 3115, consideration 3.
    That approach was comparatively recently followed by the Tribunal in determining one of a number of issues about receivability raised in the context of the employment by the EPO of external contractors (see Judgment 2919, consideration 8). Of particular relevance in that judgment for present purposes was the Tribunal’s consideration of a challenge sought to be made to the engagement of external contractors. The complainants, who were permanent employees of the EPO and members of the Munich Staff Committee, sought to raise the question of whether permanent posts should be established in order to carry out the tasks otherwise undertaken by external contractors. The Tribunal said at consideration 6:
    “As the creation of permanent posts rests exclusively within the President’s discretion under Article 10(2)(d) of the European Patent Convention, this case is not a complaint alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of terms of appointment or the Staff Regulations and is, therefore, irreceivable.”"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 2562, 2649, 2919, 3115

    Keywords:

    locus standi; staff representative;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; locus standi; plenary judgment; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3341


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as successive Chairmen of the Central Staff Committee (CSC), impugn the President’s decision not to submit to the Administrative Council a CSC document regarding the protection of human rights within the Office.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; locus standi; plenary judgment; staff representative;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainants have no specific right of access to the Council in the capacities which they identify."

    Keywords:

    locus standi;



  • Judgment 3247


    116th Session, 2014
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "In a case such as the present, jurisdiction is limited and defined by organisations submitting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the complainant being an official (or former official) of an organisation that has so submitted (see Judgments 2503, consideration 4, and 3049, consideration 4). The complainant was not an official of the Global Fund at any relevant time. She was an official of UNOPS, which has not submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the complainant’s complaint save for determining whether it has jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore not receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2503, 3049

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3206


    115th Session, 2013
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    “[T]he complainant has no cause of action in seeking the repayment of [the] emoluments [paid to the colleague whose appointment he challenges] or calling into question her pension rights, as these measures would have no bearing on his own situation (see, for example, Judgment 2281, under 4(a) and (b)).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2281

    Keywords:

    appointment; cause of action; lack of injury; locus standi; pension entitlements;

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


 
Last updated: 23.10.2020 ^ top