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

Counsel (593, 888,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Counsel
Total judgments found: 23

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4072


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    In the rejoinder, the complainant’s counsel asks the Tribunal to deduct amounts for his benefit from the monetary awards made to the complainant. However, it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself with private arrangements made between complainants and their counsel. This request must therefore be rejected.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; counsel;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    In the rejoinder, the complainants’ counsel asks the Tribunal to deduct amounts for his benefit from the monetary awards made to the complainants. However, it is not for the Tribunal to concern itself with private arrangements made between complainants and their counsel. This request must therefore be rejected.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; counsel;



  • Judgment 4063


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant’s counsel has asked the Tribunal to order the Organization to make a deduction in his favour from the pecuniary awards granted to the complainant. But it is not the Tribunal’s role to interfere in the private relations between a complainant and his counsel. That request shall therefore be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; counsel;



  • Judgment 3969


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The [President's] analysis contains a material flaw. It introduces into an assessment of whether an individual acted in good faith in the context of disciplinary proceedings a concept that, in this context, is irrelevant and likely to mislead. It may be true that for the purposes of the law of agency as it might apply, for example, to the negotiation and finalisation of contracts, the conduct of a lawyer (and less likely that of a medical adviser) can be treated as the conduct of the lawyer’s client. The lawyer, in such cases, is the client’s agent. However, it does not follow that, for the purpose of evaluating misconduct, the way the lawyer approaches the resolution of a legal question and interacts with third parties can be attributed to the client, in the sense that the lawyer’s conduct is to be treated as a manifestation of the state of mind of the client, above and beyond the conduct of the client herself or himself. While lawyers should act on instructions, it is often the case that, as a practical matter, they have considerable latitude about how they go about acting for the client. In the present case, it cannot be assumed, as the President appears to have assumed, that the lawyer had a sufficient grasp of the Service Regulations to know that Article 14 operated in the way discussed by the Tribunal in preceding considerations, and that Article 62a and the implementing rules did not modify its effect. On final analysis, the lawyer’s approach was misconceived but that does not justify the attribution of bad faith either to him or, more importantly, to the complainant.

    Keywords:

    bad faith; counsel;



  • Judgment 3424


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "In his rejoinder, the complainant contests the receivability of the Fund’s reply, on the grounds that it was submitted by a person who did not have the requisite capacity. However, the Fund’s reply and surrejoinder are signed by a lawyer who is a member of the bar in Member States of international organisations that have recognized the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and who has produced a power of attorney duly issued by the Fund. He is consequently entitled, under Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Tribunal’s Rules, to represent the Fund in the present case."

    Keywords:

    counsel; power of attorney; reply;



  • Judgment 3125


    113th Session, 2012
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The defendant [...] asserts that the complaint is irreceivable because it was not signed by the complainant herself and
    the person who is presented as her agent has not submitted a power of attorney, as required by Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Rules [of the Tribunal].
    The complainant states that a power of attorney was filed with the Registry of the Tribunal, which acknowledged it, and this has been verified.
    This objection to receivability must therefore be dismissed as factually unsound.

    Keywords:

    counsel; power of attorney;



  • Judgment 2893


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
    "This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127

    Keywords:

    breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2877


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "On the substantive issues raised before the Appeals Committee, as the Administrative Council rejected the only recommendation favourable to the complainants, it was only obliged to give reasons on this point. However, on the question of costs, the Appeals Committee recommended the payment of compensation for the assistance provided by Professor K. H. The Council did not deal with this recommendation. The Organisation argues that rejecting the appeal on the substance meant also rejecting the recommendation as to costs. This argument is dismissed. The Organisation's position is premised on an award of costs to the successful party always following the event. While this is the usual outcome, it is not always the case. In the appropriate circumstances, there is no legal principle that automatically precludes an award of costs to an unsuccessful party. Accordingly, the Council also had to give reasons for not accepting the Appeals Committee's recommendation on this point."

    Keywords:

    counsel; decision; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recommendation;



  • Judgment 2751


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

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The intention with which a statement is made is not necessarily determinative of the question whether a statement that is wholly irrelevant is also one that can serve no proper purpose." The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had stated that, by reason of the time he had spent providing legal assistance to staff members, the complainant's work as an examiner had been less satisfactory than it should have been. "That was defamatory. It was also inconsistent with the duty of the EPO to respect the complainant's dignity. In the context of the other comments that were within the limits of the privilege that attaches to proceedings before the Tribunal, it carried the threat of possible administrative consequences for the complainant's employment. Such a remark can serve no proper purpose. Accordingly, it was not privileged and the complainant is entitled to seek relief with respect to it."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514

    Keywords:

    breach; compensation; consequence; counsel; iloat; intention of parties; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; security of tenure; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2534


    101st Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    That is the decision impugned by the complainant, whose submissions are signed by a person who, according to the defendant, is not qualified to represent him, since he is neither a serving nor a former official of the Office who would be entitled as such to defend the complainant’s case pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Rules of the Tribunal, and since he has not produced the power of attorney required by Article 5(2). The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability: firstly, the parties’ submissions show that the representative chosen by the complainant has indeed produced a power of attorney signed by the latter; secondly, even though it is correct that the representative was recruited by the ILO Staff Union for only a short time, a statement signed on 3 March 2005 on behalf of the Director-General indicates that he “was a staff member of the International Labour Office (ILO) in Geneva from 2 August 2004 to 31 December 2004”. The complaint is therefore receivable.

    Keywords:

    counsel; power of attorney;



  • Judgment 2424


    98th Session, 2005
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;



  • Judgment 2418


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "Although the EPO has disputed the complainants' claim for costs of these proceedings on the basis that their counsel is a full-time EPO staff member, it is appropriate to award each complainant 1,000 euros to cover their out of pocket expenses, time and trouble."

    Keywords:

    claim; condition; costs; counsel; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2278


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

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant here is unrepresented. While the employment of a legally trained advisor is not a requirement and is no guarantee that a case will be well presented, the complainant's written pleadings are repetitive and contain largely unhelpful personal attacks on the member of the legal department who wrote the [Organisation]'s pleadings. They also contain unfounded and insulting comments about the EPO to which the latter properly objects. The Tribunal will limit the award of costs to 300 euros."

    Keywords:

    complaint; costs; counsel; rejoinder; reply;



  • Judgment 2142


    93rd Session, 2002
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 16-17

    Extract:

    The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents. The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;



  • Judgment 1952


    89th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;



  • Judgment 1610


    82nd Session, 1997
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant "objects to breach of her right to be assisted or represented by counsel in the internal appeal proceedings. But she is mistaken. Staff Rule 29.2(d), on the procedure before the Appeals Board, says that 'the appellant may be represented or assisted by any member of the Secretariat'. In refusing the complainant's application the Secretary General was merely applying the rules, and there was no breach of due process since it was still open to her to seek help from a fellow staff member."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: CCC STAFF RULE 29.2(D)

    Keywords:

    counsel; due process; enforcement; internal appeal; official; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 995


    68th Session, 1990
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    According to paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Statutes of the UNESCO Appeals Board, appeals must be presented by the official concerned or, on his behalf, by any other member of the Secretariat stationed at headquarters. The complainant was represented by a lawyer before the Appeals Board and thereby failed to comply with the prescribed procedure. His complaint is accordingly irreceivable. The Tribunal remarks that as lawyers ordinarily have access to any judicial body the rules governing the internal appeals procedure would not be admissible before a court of law. But under the circumstances of the instant case the rules in the Board's Statutes must be construed strictly.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHS 7 AND 9 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNESCO APPEALS BOARD

    Keywords:

    complainant; counsel; enforcement; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that he gave his counsel a power of attorney and that he was not well enough to go through the appeal procedure himself; indeed that is why he did not attend the Board hearings but, not being allowed to have his counsel, was represented by a member of the Secretariat.
    Such pleas might militate in favour of less strict application of the rules had the complainant, by reason of UNESCO's acts or even of its omissions, failed to grasp the consequences of his attitude. But he knew what they would be: when his counsel lodged the internal appeal on 10 October 1987 the acting Director of the Bureau of Personnel replied pointing out that it did not satisfy the requirements of the Board's Statutes and asking him "to get Mr. Agbo himself to write to the Director-General if he wants to pursue his case before the Board".
    The general power of attorney he signed on 15 September 1987 in favour of authorising his counsel to act on his behalf cannot make his internal appeal valid: a power of attorney does not have the same effect in law as an appeal bearing the appellant's own signature.

    Keywords:

    counsel; power of attorney;



  • Judgment 842


    63rd Session, 1987
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The organisation's "patent attorney may have made use of the papers but that is immaterial to the issue in dispute between it and the complainant. The fact remains that he retained the patent attorney on his own initiative and in his own interest, and without any authorisation from the ESO. That being so, the ESO is not under any legal obligation to reimburse to the complainant the amount of fees he contracted to pay the patent attorney."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 780, 840, 841

    Keywords:

    complainant; counsel; organisation's duties; proprietary rights; refund; request by a party;



  • Judgment 623


    53rd Session, 1984
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The applicable provision "says that a staff member may designate another staff member to present his case or act as his counsel before the appeals [body]. The FAO cannot therefore be held liable for not appointing a qualified lawyer to advise the complainant, nor was he denied any due procedural safeguards in putting his case".

    Keywords:

    complainant; counsel; internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 349


    40th Session, 1978
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 34

    Extract:

    "The organisation asks the Tribunal to order the complainant and the interveners to pay an equitable contribution towards the lawyers' fees incurred by the organisation. It is true that the organisation has succeeded against the interveners and on some of the claims made by the complainant. But it has never been the practice of the Tribunal to order the complainant to pay the whole or any part of an organisation's costs even when the claim has entirely failed."

    Keywords:

    counsel; no award of costs; organisation; practice; refund; tribunal;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top