|
|
 |
|
|
Advisory opinion (579,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory opinion
Total judgments found: 52
< previous | 1, 2, 3
Judgment 1113
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
After carrying out a staff review, the organization confirmed the grading of the complainant's post at grade G.5. "The reasons for CERN's decision in this case are evident from the file, the implication in the words used being that it accepted the 'views and recommendations' on the file that there should be no upgrading."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; post classification; recommendation;
Judgment 1062
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Article 38(3) of the EPO Service Regulations says that the General Advisory Committee, a joint body comprising staff and management representatives, shall be responsible for giving a "reasoned opinion" - except in cases of obvious urgency - on any proposal which concerns the whole or part of the staff. The aim of the provision is to encourage proper consultation between the two sides and that means giving the Committee enough information. At issue is the decision to raise from 1 January 1988 the staff's contributions to the organisation's collective insurance against the risks of death and invalidity. But the Committee did not have the information on which to base "a reasoned opinion" until its meeting of 24 and 25 November. The Tribunal will therefore quash the EPO's decision to increase his contributions for the period from 1 January to 25 November 1988.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 38.3 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; consultation; contributions; increase; insurance; organisation's duties;
Judgment 898
64th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant wants the Tribunal to make recommendations on how to interpret certain provisions in the rules. "Besides stating his claims in vague and general terms the complainant is not seeking the quashing of any decision but mere recommendations in the form of advice to be commended to some unidentified person or authority. The Tribunal may neither give an advisory opinion nor rule on a dispute in which no breach of the terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations is alleged. For that reason the claims are irreceivable."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complainant; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; vague claim;
Judgment 775
60th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"If an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 751
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"It is [...] immaterial that the Committee did not comment on the figures in the new salary scales. [...] In this instance what 'concerns the whole or part of the staff' is the rules for calculating the salaries of staff categories, not the actual amounts individual staff members will be paid".
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; amendment to the rules; consultation; enforcement; organisation's duties; provision; reckoning; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 476
47th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"In view of [the complainant's] supervisors' categorical and unanimous opinion [...] the Director-General did not exceed the limits of his discretion in concluding that the transfer was in the [organisation's] interests and therefore in accordance with [the applicable] provision. [...] The conclusions he drew from the evidence may have been arguable, but they were not clearly mistaken".
Keywords:
advisory opinion; discretion; organisation's interest; supervisor; transfer;
Judgment 457
46th Session, 1981
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants failed to get a promotion and addressed an appeal within the applicable time limits to the Director. He failed to take a decision on the matter within the sixty-day time, relying on the major criteria for compiling lists of officials for promotion. The final decision fell within the discretionary authority of the Director, who was free to endorse the recommendations of the Promotion Committee, although he was not bound to. There were no grounds for finding an abuse of discretionary authority. Complaint dismissed.
Keywords:
advisory opinion; binding character; discretion; executive head; promotion; promotion board; proposal;
Judgment 380
42nd Session, 1979
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
To establish that there was a promise to negotiate, the complainants rely upon the facts and reasoning contained in an opinion given personally by the members of the Tribunal. In this opinion the members, who were not confined within the limits of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, reached the conclusion that the agreement recognised that there would be prior negotiation. "The Tribunal sees no reason to differ from this conclusion." The complainants have thus justified the foundation of their statements concerning their promise to negotiate.
Keywords:
advisory opinion; collective bargaining; competence of tribunal; iloat; promise; staff union agreement; tribunal;
Judgment 352
41st Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In exercising his authority the Director-General is not bound by the recommendations of the advisory bodies. He is indeed quite free to determine the general assessment in the light of the whole file and even to alter the assessments agreed on by the official's own supervisors. The bodies which advise the Director-General therefore enjoy just as much freedom as he to assess the official's performance. [...] It is therefore open to them, if they wish, to dissent from an opinion shared by [the supervisors]."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; discretion; executive head; performance report; rating; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 283
37th Session, 1976
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
No provision requires "that a staff member be informed of the recommendations made by the competent advisory board with regard to his claim. Those recommendations are intended solely to assist the decision-making authority. The contentious nature of the administrative proceedings is respected by notification to the staff member of the decisions taken by the administration in the light of the board's report and by allowing him to reply to those decisions and that report after studying the whole of his file."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; advisory opinion; disclosure of evidence; organisation's duties; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 175
26th Session, 1971
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Internal Advisory Committee "made its recommendation only after a thorough examination of the case, as a result of which the Tribunal is in possession of all the facts it needs to reach a decision. It is therefore unnecessary to call for an expert medical opinion."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; expert inquiry; medical examination; submissions;
Judgment 26
6th Session, 1957
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant adduces no satisfactory evidence that she suffered any working incapacity [...]. No satisfactory evidence has been adduced to prove that the payment of the sum recommended by the Medical Commission does not fully and generously compensate the complainant for the injury sustained".
Keywords:
advisory opinion; amount; compensation; evidence; incapacity; lack of evidence; medical board;
< previous | 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
|
|
