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

Limits (550,-666)

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

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



  • Judgment 2228


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Staff Committee, which is a statutory body of the organisation, made the facilities derived from its access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system available to the Staff Union. Its access to the system was withdrawn. "The organisation [submits that] the facilities offered to the Staff Committee cannot be made available to the Staff Union without creating confusion with regard to the attribution of roles and responsibilities, even if those in charge of one of these bodies are also, or may be, in charge of the other. This does not mean to say that the unions should not be provided with certain facilities by the organisations. On the contrary, their freedom of expression should not be hampered, as indicated by the Tribunal in Judgment 1547, [...] and unions must clearly be provided with sufficient facilities, within the framework of negotiated agreements or, if need be, administrative regulations, to enable them to carry on their activities. It is legitimate, however, for the organisation to ensure that the facilities made available to a body officially representing the staff as a whole are not misused for the benefit of a union, or any other body having its own assets and representing only part of the staff."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1547

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; case law; collective bargaining; facilities; freedom of speech; grounds; liability; limits; organisation's duties; purpose; refusal; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; staff union agreement; written rule;



  • Judgment 2227


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 911

    Keywords:

    acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2221


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9-10

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;



  • Judgment 2220


    95th Session, 2003
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."

    Keywords:

    binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2163


    93rd Session, 2002
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. Being subject to only limited review, it may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;



  • Judgment 2151


    93rd Session, 2002
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not undertake a job classification exercise, which lies solely within the authority of the defendant. However, the succession of errors made in this case, as acknowledged both by the Classification Review Committee and the [Organisation] itself, leaves room for serious doubts concerning the objectivity of the rationale for the classifications that are being challenged. [...] The Tribunal finds that the complainants must not suffer any injury from the Organisation's impossibility to reconstitute the elements on which the classification was made. [The Tribunal] has to assess the effects of the errors committed and of the [Organisation]'s inability to indicate precisely the methods followed by the consultant in his recommendation to maintain the complainants' posts at [the same] grade."

    Keywords:

    complainant; consequence; flaw; grade; injury; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;



  • Judgment 2136


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 499

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;



  • Judgment 2120


    93rd Session, 2002
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant assumes that the provisions of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat, being subordinate legislation, are incompatible with the corresponding provisions of the primary legislation, namely the Staff Rules. The Tribunal considers that the notice "does not merely implement or clarify the Staff Rule; it purports to extend its reach substantially. It cannot stand."

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; condition; definition; difference; enforcement; limits; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purport; purpose; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2114


    92nd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274

    Keywords:

    censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 2098


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated by mutual agreement. He appears to object that the organization terminated his employment while he was on sick leave. "Although the Tribunal held in Judgment 938 [...] that a staff member cannot be separated while on sick leave, it later pointed out that its ruling was to be seen in context and could not be applied in any circumstances whatever (see Judgment 1494 [...], under 6). The rule being intended to protect the staff member, it cannot be applied where the termination is the subject of an agreement, particularly when it has been mooted by the staff member concerned".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 938, 1494

    Keywords:

    agreed termination; case law; condition; contract; exception; iloat; limits; separation from service; sick leave;



  • Judgment 2097


    92nd Session, 2002
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "Most contracts are entered into because both parties think it is to their economic advantage to do so. Where there is great disparity in bargaining power [...] the law will impose constraints upon the more powerful. In the international civil service that is one of the functions of the staff rules, and where these are inadequate, the Tribunal will intervene to redress the balance through the application of general principles of international civil service law."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; contract; difference; enforcement; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; right; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2095


    92nd Session, 2002
    Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The determination of salary scales is discretionary [and] must be exercised within a framework of rules drawn from both the relevant statutory provisions and the general principles of clarity, stability and foreseeability defined in the case law (see, for example, Judgment 1821)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821

    Keywords:

    case law; definition; discretion; general principle; iloat; limits; organisation; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2079


    92nd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant, who was only fit to work 75 per cent of normal hours, was able to work only as a staff representative. Such activities were restricted to 50 per cent of normal working hours but he nevertheless "request[ed] to work at 75 per cent on staff committee duties [which] was in fact a request to devote 100 per cent of office time to that function. As such it was manifestly inadmissible."

    Keywords:

    complainant; limits; medical fitness; part-time employment; refusal; request by a party; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 2052


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The decision not to give permission to spend sick leave elsewhere than at the staff member's place of residence is clearly discretionary in nature. It is well-established by the case law of the Tribunal that a discretionary decision is subject to limited review."

    Keywords:

    decision; discretion; duty station; judicial review; limits; residence; sick leave;



  • Judgment 2017


    90th Session, 2001
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2(A)

    Extract:

    "The complainant enjoyed the status of official from October 1974 to the end of December 1992. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 he was employed on the basis of special agreements, which contained an arbitration clause providing for an "arbitral panel" composed of three members. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore limited to the effects of the relationship between the [organisation] and the complainant from October 1974 to the end of December 1992."

    Keywords:

    arbitration; competence of tribunal; contract; date; external collaborator; limits; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2004


    90th Session, 2001
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    Out of six candidates, only the complainant was interviewed by video conference. "While the Tribunal is not to be understood as saying that a video conference is not a perfectly acceptable method of conducting interviews, care must always be taken to ensure that no candidate is given a potentially unfair advantage by that process. Flying one person across the ocean to be interviewed while leaving a competitor from the same area at home is open to the interpretation of unequal treatment."

    Keywords:

    bias; competition; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; limits; procedural flaw; remand;



  • Judgment 1973


    89th Session, 2000
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has always held that personal promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward someone for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. The granting of personal promotion is a discretionary decision which, as firm precedent has it, is subject to only limited review and will stand unless it shows a fatal flaw. In a case such as the present one, in which the general rules regarding personal promotions have been adopted and communicated to the staff, the appointing authority is bound by these rules and the Tribunal will consider any violation of them to be a fatal flaw."

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; discretion; executive head; flaw; judicial review; limits; patere legem; personal promotion; promotion;



  • Judgment 1969


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

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will quash [...] a decision [of a discretionary nature] only if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."

    Keywords:

    decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 1966


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

    Considerations 10 and 12

    Extract:

    "Even if [a] practice [of distributing internal personal mail could create] an obligation upon the Office, it should be emphasised that such an obligation could involve limits relating, for example, to the content, nature and purpose of the mail that it is requested to distribute. [The] staff members [of the organisation] do not enjoy an absolute right to have information or documents of any type distributed through the office's facilities."

    Keywords:

    effect; limits; organisation's duties; practice; right;



  • Judgment 1894


    88th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."

    Keywords:

    evidence; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical expenses; staff member's duties; tribunal;

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


 
Last updated: 23.11.2020 ^ top