Competence of Tribunal (102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competence of Tribunal
Total judgments found: 521
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 | next >
Judgment 5194
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in national criminal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; costs;
Judgment 5189
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his transposition into a new job group, together with the refusal to grant him a salary increase to which he believed he was entitled, pursuant to the introduction of a new career regime applicable to chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Il appartiendra à l’Organisation d’établir, sur cette base, de nouvelles fiches de salaire mensuelles, pour la période en cause qui se substitueront à celles initialement délivrées."
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 24
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls its established case law concerning disciplinary matters. The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, 4491, consideration 19, and 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, and 4364, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4364, 4491, 4858
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5155
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to select her for the position of Head of the WHO Office in Dakar, Senegal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The second matter concerns the complainant’s request for an order that she “be selected for the post of [Head of Office] in Senegal”. The Tribunal is not competent to make such an order. Pursuant to its case law, recalled in consideration 2 of this judgment, it is within the purview of the Director-General, and not within that of the Tribunal, to appoint her or any other staff member to a post.
Keywords:
appointment; competence; competence of tribunal; executive head; order; selection procedure;
Judgment 5153
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
“[I]t is desirable to briefly discuss the Tribunal’s case law concerning the renewal of temporary contacts. A convenient summary of the overarching principles is found in Judgment 4877, consideration 2: ‘It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that the decision not to renew the appointment of a staff member of an international organisation lies within the discretion of its executive head and is therefore 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 was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4654, consideration 16, 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, or 1052, consideration 4). That is, a fortiori, the situation in a case such as this where the dispute concerns the non-renewal of a temporary appointment which expressly stated that the appointee was not guaranteed any renewal or conversion of his contract into any other type of contract’[…]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 2148, 4172, 4654, 4877
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5152
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of the measures taken following the Organization’s acknowledgment of the violation of its duty of care towards him and asks that it be ordered to publish a press release to clear his reputation and to pay him additional amounts in moral damages and legal “fees”.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal case law has it that, as a general rule, the Tribunal does not have the competence to issue injunctions against international organisations (see, for example, Judgments 5057, consideration 22 (order to institute disciplinary proceedings), 5045, consideration 19 (order the issuance of a directive), 4802, consideration 2 (order to publish an internal decision), 4065, consideration 9 (order to issue an official announcement to clear reputation), 4039, consideration 17 (order to provide apologies), 3506, consideration 18 (order to instruct an organisation to do something), and 2626, consideration 13 (order to sanction staff members)). When addressing this issue recognizing that its competence in this regard is limited, the Tribunal indeed refers to the expression of not having the competence to “order injunctions of this kind” (see, for example, Judgment 5045, consideration 19). But in a situation like this one, where the context involves a clear defamatory statement circulated by an international organization and affecting a complainant’s honour and reputation, the Tribunal is prepared to proceed on the basis of the approach in Judgment 2720, considerations 17 and 18.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2626, 2720, 3506, 4039, 4065, 4802, 5045, 5057
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[S]till on the violation of the Organization’s duty of care, the complainant further argues that UNAIDS failed to take the necessary concrete measures to ensure a prompt correction of the inaccurate public statements made internally and to the press. On this point, the Tribunal observes that even though the GBA report identified a fault of UNAIDS and that the latter acknowledged its violation of its duty of care in the impugned decision, the actions taken to remedy the harm done, considering the nature of its communications and press release, were insufficient and less than what would have been expected from an international organisation. Having affected, albeit not intentionally or maliciously, the complainant’s reputation and image through what were incomplete and misleading public statements, it was reasonable to expect the Organization to redress the situation through similar public means, which it refused to do. The Tribunal considers that UNAIDS’ mere removal of the inaccurate press release from its website and its action to correct its spokesperson’s inaccurate characterization of the nature of the complainant’s leave to the press agency were insufficient in this respect. More required to be done in that context.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; organisation's duties; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he claims aimed at third parties, in the present case the request that media be ordered to remove articles or to publish retractions, go well beyond the Tribunal’s competence.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; third party;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The press release issued by UNAIDS on 14 September 2018 caused prejudice to the complainant’s honour and reputation. Similarly to the situation that prevailed in Judgment 2720, the Organization was, pursuant to its duty of care, under a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the injury it caused to the complainant. The Tribunal has the authority to order specific performance of such an obligation, bearing in mind that the nature of the specific performance that is to be ordered must be clear and unambiguous so that it does not lead to further disputes between the parties. […] The order of the Tribunal in this respect should rather be kept as simple as possible. […]. This, in the Tribunal’s view, is the proper way to vindicate the harm caused to the reputation of the complainant because of the Organization’s violations of its duty of care towards him. Given that press statements publicly accessible on mediums like the Internet end up remaining available for very long periods of time after their initial publication, issuing such an order in the circumstances remains appropriate even though the relevant events go back many years.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2720
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; duty of care; duty of discretion; injunction; professional injury; publication; respect for dignity; right to privacy; staff member's interest;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls that it is well established in its case law that it is not its role to re-evaluate the evidence in cases of harassment in the face of findings by an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see Judgment 4884, consideration 5), at least in the absence of demonstrated manifest error (see Judgments 4999, consideration 6, 4884, consideration 5, 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2). Also, an internal appeals body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where the report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational (see Judgment 4848, consideration 10) […] In essence, the question to be addressed is whether the complainant, in his pleas, has established a vitiating error [in the] investigation and report […] or by the Director-General in the exercise of his discretionary power to close the case (see Judgment 4999, considerations 5 to 7). The answer is that he has not.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597, 4091, 4344, 4848, 4884, 4999, 4999
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5149
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue him with a written reprimand.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal has consistently stated, as it recalled in consideration 5 of Judgment 5003, for example, that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning the Tribunal’s limited power of review and not to that of an internal appeal body. This, according to the Tribunal, is because internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged, and that, ordinarily, the task of internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made as its power extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions, which restriction is not provided for in the FAO’s rules. This error of law by the Appeals Committee is sufficient basis for setting aside the impugned decision without it being necessary to consider other grounds.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
advisory body; case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; due process; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 5145
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim that his injury was service-incurred.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t is appropriate to recall the role of the Tribunal in reviewing decisions concerning medical issues, which is not limited to procedural defects. The Tribunal does have full competence to say whether the medical findings show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence (see Judgment 1752, consideration 9). The limit of this review is that, being scientifically based and scientifically relevant, the medical bodies’ evaluations should be accepted by the Tribunal unless they are considered clearly unreliable according to current scientific knowledge (see Judgment 2580, consideration 6). The Tribunal will not substitute its own determination for the medical findings upon which that decision was based and can annul decisions based on medical findings if they are affected by misuse of authority, error of law or of fact, or discernible arbitrariness (see Judgment 3745, consideration 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752, 2580, 3745
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; service-incurred;
Judgment 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“[A]ccording to its consistent case law, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it rested on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4916, consideration 4, and 4495, consideration 15). Moreover, the case law also requires that the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 4917, consideration 12, 4503, consideration 7, and 3769, consideration 7).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3769, 4495, 4503, 4916, 4917
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; notice; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5139
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reappoint rather than reinstate him when he was re-employed by Interpol following a break of several months.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal provides, in paragraphs 1 and 5, that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of an official’s appointment and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of the organization that employs her or him. As the Tribunal has consistently held, it may be inferred from these provisions that, for a complaint to be receivable, among other requirements, the staff member must have a cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 4337, consideration 6, 4296, consideration 6, 4145, consideration 5, or 3426, consideration 16). A cause of action may be recognized only if the decision challenged by that official adversely affects her or him (see, in particular, Judgments 4322, considerations 8 and 9, 3198, consideration 13, 2952, consideration 3, and 1852, considerations 2 and 3). If the complainant does not allege the violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4317, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2952, 3198, 3426, 4145, 4296, 4317, 4322, 4337
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 5118
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close her harassment complaint without carrying out an investigation following a preliminary review.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4832, consideration 2, regarding a claim similar to claim number 7, the Tribunal held that it cannot issue orders of the nature sought against individuals who are not parties to the pending dispute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4832
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of law;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t is settled case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue declarations of the nature sought in claim number 6 (see, for example, Judgments 4885, consideration 12, 4700, consideration 2, 4637, consideration 6, 4492, consideration 8, 4246, consideration 11, and 3876, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876, 4246, 4492, 4637, 4700, 4885
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of law;
Judgment 5114
141st Session, 2026
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Secretary General to terminate her employment contract.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The OACPS raises receivability as a threshold issue. It submits, correctly, that this Tribunal has no competence to function as an appeal body to hear what is essentially an appeal from the First Instance Labour Tribunal of Brussels. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5110
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who suffers from service-incurred injuries, contests the decision to deny full reimbursement for her laboratory test expenses.
Consideration 9
Extract:
“In a [medical] case such as this, the Tribunal will not substitute its own views for the medical opinions on which the Administration’s decision is based. The Tribunal is, however, fully competent to assess whether the required procedure was correctly followed and to determine whether the challenged decision was unlawful, among other things, because it contained any substantive error or inconsistency, overlooked essential facts or drew erroneous conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4831, consideration 4, 3994, consideration 5, and 3689, consideration 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3689, 3994, 4831
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion;
Judgment 5109
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation for moral injury due to the harassment he suffered by his supervisor.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The events which led to the complainant lodging a formal complaint of harassment with OIOS in late April 2021 (and in respect of which he had taken notes) began in October 2020. That is five years ago. It would be open to the Tribunal to remit the matter to the IAEA to enable the Director General to consider whether he should exercise his discretionary power to award moral damages in favour of the complainant. However, that would be likely to delay the resolution of the matter for several, if not many, months. Accordingly, the Tribunal will award moral damages itself, as it is empowered to do (see, for example, Judgment 4808, considerations 13 to 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4808
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; harassment; moral damages; moral injury; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5108
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[T]he complainant asks the Tribunal to reclassify the post to grade P-5 as the desk audit had recommended, with retroactive effect. This claim is irreceivable as it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to make orders of this kind against organizations, and, moreover, the classification of posts and gradings are within the discretionary authority of the Director-General […]."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order a post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 5101
141st Session, 2026
International Center for the Registration of Serials
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
« [U]n fonctionnaire titulaire d’un [contrat de durée déterminée] ne peut pas se prévaloir d’un droit à son renouvellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4587, au considérant 19, et 3448, au considérant 7). La décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’engagement d’un fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint de la part du Tribunal. Elle ne peut être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, si elle viole une règle de forme ou de procédure, si elle repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, si son auteur a omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou a tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou si elle est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4877, au considérant 2, 4654, au considérant 16, 4172, au considérant 5, 2148, au considérant 23, ou 1052, au considérant 4). Par ailleurs, le rôle du Tribunal dans l’examen des décisions de non-renouvellement de contrats pour des raisons budgétaires est, par nature, limité (voir les jugements 4953, au considérant 4, 4834, au considérant 2, et 3367, au considérant 11). Il n’en reste pas moins que toute décision de non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement de durée déterminée doit reposer sur des raisons objectives et valables (voir, notamment, le jugement 4654, au considérant 16).»
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [I]l n’appartient pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qui est le sien en la matière, de se substituer à l’appréciation qui a été faite par la Directrice et le Conseil d’administration concernant les restrictions budgétaires nécessitant le non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante […] il n’incombe pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qu’il est appelé à exercer en la matière, de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle de la Directrice en recherchant s’il n’y avait pas d’autres alternatives financières possibles au non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante afin de faire face aux difficultés budgétaires que rencontrait le Centre. »
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5098
141st Session, 2026
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-recognition of her illness as occupational.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“Established precedent has it that where, like in the present case, a complaint involves a medical matter, the Tribunal “may not replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence” (see, in particular, Judgments 4761, consideration 2, 4699, consideration 6, 4694, consideration 11, 4464, consideration 7, 3994, consideration 5, and 3361, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699, 4761
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“It appears that, in the minds of the drafters of the JAAB’s recommendation, the consideration that “the JAAB has no mandate to investigate the recommendations of the JADB” was based on the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body, and the findings of such a body are entitled to considerable deference by it, unless they have been improperly established or reveal a manifest error […]. However, this case law concerns the role of the Tribunal itself, not that of an appeal body […]. This case law is explained, inter alia, by the fact that it is not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body and by the idea that it is not best placed to assess the reliability of the statements of persons who may be heard in the course of an investigation. More generally, it refers to the particular features and limits of the Tribunal’s judicial role. However, these specificities do not apply to appeal bodies and, as the Tribunal has held on several occasions, such a body is wrong, when, in defining its own role, it refers to restrictions that apply in certain cases to the judicial review of administrative decisions […]. While the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them is, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made […].The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is where the rules governing the appeal body provide for such restrictions […]. The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof […].
Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case not only did the JAAB refuse to further investigate the case, it also refused to conduct a legal analysis of the proceedings before the JADB, in order to assess whether it complied with the applicable staff rules and regulations and whether the procedural flaws in the process alleged by the complainant had occurred.
It should be emphasized that this error of law, which resulted in the JAAB’s refusal to fully review the disciplinary decision, had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered by that body. As a result, the complainant was not granted a fair and effective internal remedy.”
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; internal appeals body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5087
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to remove the name of Mr T., a permanent employee at grade A4(2), from the list of grade A5 nominees to the Disciplinary Committee for 2013.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The premise underlying these claims is that the complainant had a justiciable right, at the time he filed his complaint on 3 June 2020, to challenge the lawfulness of the treatment of another staff member in the consideration of his possible appointment as a member of a Disciplinary Committee. He did not. It is not a matter of the type comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, which concerns alleged violation of the rights of the complainant, not of other staff members (see, for example, Judgment 4120, consideration 6). Accordingly, none of these orders would be made in these proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4120
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 | next >
|
