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

Competence (84, 822, 823,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Competence
Total judgments found: 97

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

  • Judgment 4358


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute recognises that officials whose employment has ceased can access the Tribunal (Article II, paragraph 6(a)), a circumstance which might, for example, involve the enforcement of rights which had arisen during the currency of their employment (see, for example, Judgment 4219, consideration 17). However it is nonetheless necessary, to render a complaint receivable, for a complainant to be seeking to vindicate non-observance of her or his terms of appointment or Staff Regulations as are applicable (Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute). Ordinarily, as is the case in the present proceedings, a person who has ceased to be a member of the staff of an international organisation has no subsisting terms of appointment nor are there ordinarily any applicable Staff Regulations and none applying to former staff members are pointed to in these proceedings.
    Accordingly the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable as the Tribunal has no competence to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 3774, consideration 1, and 3709, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3709, 3774, 4219

    Keywords:

    competence; former official; ratione personae;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint dismissed; former official; ratione personae;



  • Judgment 4219


    129th Session, 2020
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint allowed; harassment; ratione personae; secondment;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has recognised that former officials can seek redress in the Tribunal when, inter alia, the former official is seeking to enforce rights which had arisen during the currency of her or his employment with the international organisation concerned (see, for example, Judgments 3505, consideration 3, and 3915, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505, 3915

    Keywords:

    competence; former official; ratione materiae; ratione personae;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In relation to the challenge to the impugned decision, insofar as the Director-General concluded the complainant had no right of appeal, the following comment can be made. There can be no doubt that there is no general right of appeal available to staff of international organisations deriving, at least impliedly, from their terms of appointment to challenge decisions with which they are aggrieved irrespective of the provisions of applicable staff rules or regulations. However, even if the staff rules or regulations do not provide for an appeal, they cannot preclude the initiation of proceedings in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2312, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2312

    Keywords:

    competence; right of appeal;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal now turns directly to the question of whether the complainant was an official for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. In relation to seconded staff, it has been said by the Tribunal that “[a]s a general rule, the effect of secondment is to suspend the contractual relationship between the releasing agency and the employee, who retains the right to return to the releasing agency upon expiry of the secondment term without having to seek other employment. During secondment, [she or]he is subject to the staff regulations and rules of the receiving agency” (see Judgment 2184, consideration 4). Ultimately, of course, the status of a seconded employee has to be assessed having regard to the specific arrangements in place concerning the secondment. One case where a seconded employee was not viewed as an official or employee of the receiving organisation is Judgment 3247. Additionally, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2918, consideration 11, “[s]econdment is, in essence, a tripartite agreement which, ordinarily, involves an agreement between the person seconded and the receiving organisation, at least as to some matters”. In that case the applicability of the Staff Regulations depended on whether an individual had concluded an employment contract with the organisation and the Tribunal found the seconded staff had not. Additionally in that judgment reference was made to Judgment 703, which established that secondment does not necessarily preclude the person concerned from becoming a staff member of the organisation to which she or he is seconded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 703, 2184, 2918, 3247

    Keywords:

    competence; official; ratione personae; secondment; staff member;



  • Judgment 4104


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence; complaint dismissed; impugned decision; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment 3551


    120th Session, 2015
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. The complainant stated in the complaint form that he filed the complaint in his capacity as a former official. However, according the express terms of the SSA under which he was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, he has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 1034, under 3, and 3049, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1034, 3049

    Keywords:

    competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; special service agreement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3494


    120th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3414


    119th Session, 2015
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[I]t has long been recognised that all officials of international organisations have a right to associate and an implied contractual term in the appointment of each that the relevant organisation will not infringe that right (see, for example, Judgment 496, consideration 6). Moreover the principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to detriment or disability because of her or his activities within a staff association or the Staff Council (see, for example, Judgments 2704, consideration 6, and 3084, consideration 19). In the present case the complainant does contend he is being discriminated against and this has arisen by virtue of him occupying the office of President of the Staff Council. This plea is sufficient to engage the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is, of course, another question whether this plea can be made on the facts. But the Tribunal is competent to hear the complaint and rejects the IAEA’s contention that it is not."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 2704, 3084

    Keywords:

    competence; freedom of association;



  • Judgment 3291


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 3053


    112th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint dismissed; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Ordinarily, if an internal appeals body wrongly declines jurisdiction, the decision to that effect will be set aside and remitted for further consideration in accordance with the relevant internal appeal procedures."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal;



  • Judgment 3049


    111th Session, 2011
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal's jurisdiction does not extend to complaints filed by individuals who do not have the status of an official in the defendant organisations.
    "The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, '[t]he Tribunal shall [...] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations of any [...] international organization meeting the standards set out in the Annex hereto which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration recognizing, in accordance with its Constitution or internal administrative rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official of [the Organization] and is not covered by [the latter's] Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, in particular the provisions governing the internal appeal process, she has no access to this Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence; competence of tribunal; iloat; iloat statute; non official; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3046


    111th Session, 2011
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;



  • Judgment 2994


    110th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Amendment of the rules concerning the health insurance coverage of spouses gainfully employed outside the Office.
    "[I]n the absence of a specified procedure or some other provision indicating to the contrary, an internal appeals body necessarily has power to determine what procedure should be followed when multiple appeals are filed with respect to the same issue."

    Keywords:

    competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 2957


    110th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Contestation of a performance appraisal report.
    "[T]he Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Committee has the authority to recommend that a case be sent back for review or, in an appropriate case, to recommend a precise remedy."

    Keywords:

    competence; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;



  • Judgment 2915


    109th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Director General did not sign the letter [informing the complainant that her request was denied] does not mean that he did not take the relevant decision. The signing of the letter by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] is consistent with normal personnel practice. Moreover, the presumption of regularity applies in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary."

    Keywords:

    competence; evidence; executive head; formal requirements; practice; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2912


    109th Session, 2010
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;



  • Judgment 2892


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

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The first argument advanced by the complainant in relation to the decision to suspend him from duty is that the Deputy Secretary-General had no authority to take such a decision but, rather, as the Secretary-General was an interested party, the question of suspension should have been referred to the ITU Council [...]. It is correct that it was incumbent on the Secretary-General to refrain from taking any decision concerning the incidents that occurred in his office [...]. As stated in Judgment 179, "his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds". Although Staff Rule 10.1.3 refers only to suspension by the Secretary-General, the doctrine of necessity allows that, where there is a conflict of interest, authority is to be granted to some other appropriate person. However, that does not mean that the question should have been referred to the Council. That body has certain powers with respect to elected officials, but not with respect to unelected officials. As an elected official and as the next most senior official, the Deputy Secretary-General was the appropriate person to exercise authority with respect to the incidents that occurred [...], even if the relevant provision did not so provide."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179

    Keywords:

    bias; challenge of member; competence; decision; executive body; no provision;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."

    Keywords:

    competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;

    Consideration 4(a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028

    Keywords:

    allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2493


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;



  • Judgment 2363


    97th Session, 2004
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 2324


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

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    "[P]ursuant to Rule 5.3.01, only the Director General had authority to place the complainant on special leave with full pay [...] However, [...] it was the Director of Administration, not the Director-General, who wrote to the complainant and informed her that he was 'placing [her] on special leave with pay until further notice'. That letter contains no reference whatsoever to the Director General or to any discussions with the latter. And although, in her request for review, the complainant expressly contended that the Director of Administration had taken the decision in question, the Director-General did not say anything to the contrary in his reply. [...] That correspondence gives rise to the very strong inference that the decision was taken by the Director of Administration and not by the Director General."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Interim Staff Rule 5.3.01

    Keywords:

    competence; decision; delegated authority; evidence; executive head; special leave;

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


 
Last updated: 28.09.2021 ^ top