Applicable law (177, 179, 687, 856, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 900, 663, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645, 209, 211, 664, 213, 215, 230, 227, 228, 231, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 685, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 732, 751, 949,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Applicable law
Total judgments found: 123
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 5175
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the retroactive payment of the dependants’ allowance and the related family allowances for his two daughters.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The EPO’s submission that the complainant’s reliance on the decisions taken by national courts is misplaced as it is not bound by national law is well founded. According to the case law, reliance on national law, which cannot be enforced against the EPO, does not create a legal obstacle to the application of internal rules and regulations (see, for example, Judgments 4800, consideration 6, 4553, consideration 4, and 4401, consideration 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4401, 4553, 4800
Keywords:
applicable law;
Judgment 5162
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administration’s refusal to recognise the overtime she worked in June and July 2020 during the Covid-19 sanitary crisis and seeks to have her entitlements restored for the five years preceding the filing of her complaint pursuant to French law.
Consideration 9
Extract:
«[I]l résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les conditions d’emploi des membres du personnel d’une organisation internationale sont en principe exclusivement régies par les règles statutaires de celle-ci et par les principes généraux du droit de la fonction publique internationale, et que le droit national de l’État hôte de l’organisation concernée ou d’un autre État n’est applicable en la matière qu’en cas de renvoi exprès à ses dispositions (voir notamment les jugements 5051, au considérant 8, 4882, au considérant 2, 4401, au considérant 6, 3915, au considérant 4, 3484, au considérant 12, et 1311, au considérant 15).»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1311, 3484, 3915, 4401, 4882, 5051
Keywords:
applicable law;
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 26
Extract:
“The UK judgment quoted [by the complainant] is irrelevant, as it is not binding on WHO, which has established its own standard of conduct for its staff.”
Keywords:
applicable law; case law of other tribunals;
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 6
Extract:
“As to the applicable [Harassment] Policy […], when addressing a claim, an administrative authority must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, non-retroactivity of administrative decisions, and protection of acquired rights, the above rule will not apply (see Judgments 3214, consideration 14, and 3034, consideration 33). In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Organization […] correctly relied on the [former] Policy in force when the alleged misconduct occurred […] [The] application of the new Policy would have resulted in a breach of the requirements of good faith and non-retroactivity of administrative decisions, because it would involve a violation of the general principle applicable to disciplinary sanctions that nobody can be punished for conduct that was not illegal when it was carried out. The complainant’s allegations of harassment pertain to conduct that occurred before the new Policy entered into force. The principles of good faith and non-retroactivity mandate that this conduct be assessed in light of the law in force at the time it occurred, that is the former Policy. Additionally, the harassment complaint was lodged, and the […] investigation was carried out, while the former Policy was still in effect.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3034, 3214
Keywords:
applicable law; harassment; ratione temporis;
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 4
Extract:
"[W]hen addressing a claim, an administrative authority must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, the above rule will not apply (see Judgments 3214, consideration 14, and 3034, consideration 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3034, 3214
Keywords:
applicable law; date;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Considerations 6-11
Extract:
“[T]he complainant argues that pursuant to […] ITU Policy on Harassment and Abuse of Authority, applicable at the material time, most of the incidents alleged by the three complainants and discussed in the investigation report were already time-barred by the date the related complaints were submitted […]. He maintains that by the time ITU issued its new Service Order […], which modified the deadline for the submission of a misconduct complaint […], those incidents were long time-barred […].
[I]t is not disputed that Service Order […] was in force when the complaints that triggered the investigation and subsequent procedure were lodged. On the face of its clear wording, this Service Order applied to the present case. The Tribunal considers that it is incorrect to suggest that to so conclude would breach the principle of non-retroactivity because the alleged wrongdoing occurred more than one year before the Service Order’s promulgation. As rightly pointed to by ITU, a distinction must be made between substantive and procedural provisions. Indeed, the Tribunal has recalled many times that “a provision is retroactive if it effects some change in existing legal status, rights, liabilities or interests from a date prior to its proclamation, but not if it merely affects the procedures to be observed in the future with respect to such status, rights, liabilities or interests” […].
In Judgment 5006, the statutory provisions that were in play left no doubt as to their non-retroactive character. […] The Tribunal considered that, unambiguously, this created a time limit restricting consideration of allegations of sexual harassment to those made concerning conduct within the year preceding the complaint and that “inadmissible” must be taken to mean, in this context, that it would and could not be entertained afterwards by the organization. […]”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5006
Keywords:
applicable law; harassment; time limit;
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 5
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, when addressing a claim, an administrative authority must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and protection of acquired rights, the above rule will not apply […].
In the present case, in its recommendations, the [internal appeals body] stated that the complainant’s misconduct had to be assessed under the rules in force at the time it occurred […].
[….] The Tribunal concurs with this reasoning insofar as it concerns the assessment of misconduct, the disciplinary measure, and its further consequence, i.e. the recording of the disciplinary decision in the personal file. Indeed, a general principle concerning disciplinary measures is that the applicable rules are those in force at the time the misconduct occurred, unless new rules are more favourable to the perpetrator, in which case the new rules apply.
However, regarding the statutory rules concerning the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and internal appeals, the Tribunal maintains, in light of its case law, that the applicable rules were those in force when the proceedings were carried out and the related decisions were issued."
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity;
Judgment 5051
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de classer ses plaintes pour harcèlement à l’issue des procédures d’évaluation préliminaire de celles-ci.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les conditions d’emploi des membres du personnel d’une organisation internationale sont, de façon générale, exclusivement régies par les règles statutaires de celle-ci et par les principes généraux du droit de la fonction publique internationale, et que le droit national – tel celui de l’État hôte de l’organisation concernée – n’est applicable en la matière qu’en cas de renvoi exprès à ses dispositions (voir notamment les jugements 4882, au considérant 2, 4401, au considérant 6, 3915, au considérant 4, et 3484, au considérant 12).
[L]’UNESCO a bien entendu adopté des textes statutaires régissant les conditions d’emploi de ses fonctionnaires, ce qui exclut ainsi toute application directe du droit de l’État hôte dans ce domaine (voir, sur ce point, le jugement 2193, au considérant 8). En outre, ces textes statutaires ne comportent aucun renvoi au droit national en matière de modalités de traitement des plaintes pour harcèlement. Le droit français est donc sans application en l’espèce. Enfin, le Tribunal n’est nullement lié, dans l’élaboration de sa jurisprudence, par celle d’une juridiction nationale, telle la Cour de cassation française.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2193, 3484, 3915, 4401, 4882
Keywords:
applicable law;
Judgment 5023
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]l ressort du considérant 15 du jugement 4207, rendu en formation plénière, qu’en l’absence de procédure légale complète à appliquer en cas de plainte pour harcèlement dans ses Statut et Règlement du personnel, une organisation internationale doit répondre à une telle plainte conformément à la jurisprudence pertinente du Tribunal. Dans ce jugement, le Tribunal a en outre relevé ce qui suit à ce sujet:
«Il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une organisation internationale a le devoir d’assurer aux membres de son personnel un environnement sûr et adéquat (voir le jugement 2706, au considérant 5, citant le jugement 2524). De plus, “étant donné la gravité que revêt une plainte pour harcèlement, une organisation internationale a l’obligation d’engager […] [une] enquête […]” (voir le jugement 3347, au considérant 14). L’enquête doit en outre être engagée rapidement, menée de manière approfondie, et les faits doivent être établis objectivement et dans leur contexte général. Une fois l’enquête terminée, le requérant est en droit de recevoir une réponse de l’administration concernant la plainte pour harcèlement. De plus, comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 2706, au considérant 5, “une organisation internationale est responsable de l’ensemble des torts causés à un membre de son personnel par un supérieur hiérarchique de l’intéressé, agissant dans le cadre de ses fonctions, lorsque la victime subit un traitement portant atteinte à sa dignité personnelle et professionnelle” (voir également les jugements 1609, au considérant 16, 1875, au considérant 32, et 3170, au considérant 33). Ainsi, une organisation internationale doit prendre les mesures nécessaires pour protéger une victime de harcèlement.»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2524, 2706, 3170, 3347, 4207
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; duty of care; harassment;
Judgment 5022
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste le rejet de ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral contre deux de ses supérieurs hiérarchiques.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[I]l ressort du considérant 15 du jugement 4207, rendu en formation plénière, qu’en l’absence de procédure légale complète à appliquer en cas de plainte pour harcèlement dans ses Statut et Règlement du personnel, une organisation internationale doit répondre à une telle plainte conformément à la jurisprudence pertinente du Tribunal. Dans ce jugement, le Tribunal a en outre relevé ce qui suit à ce sujet:
«Il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une organisation internationale a le devoir d’assurer aux membres de son personnel un environnement sûr et adéquat (voir le jugement 2706, au considérant 5, citant le jugement 2524). De plus, “étant donné la gravité que revêt une plainte pour harcèlement, une organisation internationale a l’obligation d’engager […] [une] enquête […]” (voir le jugement 3347, au considérant 14). L’enquête doit en outre être engagée rapidement, menée de manière approfondie, et les faits doivent être établis objectivement et dans leur contexte général. Une fois l’enquête terminée, le requérant est en droit de recevoir une réponse de l’administration concernant la plainte pour harcèlement. De plus, comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 2706, au considérant 5, “une organisation internationale est responsable de l’ensemble des torts causés à un membre de son personnel par un supérieur hiérarchique de l’intéressé, agissant dans le cadre de ses fonctions, lorsque la victime subit un traitement portant atteinte à sa dignité personnelle et professionnelle” (voir également les jugements 1609, au considérant 16, 1875, au considérant 32, et 3170, au considérant 33). Ainsi, une organisation internationale doit prendre les mesures nécessaires pour protéger une victime de harcèlement.»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2524, 2706, 3170, 3347, 4207
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; duty of care; harassment;
Judgment 5006
140th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him, in particular for alleged sexual harassment and failure to act in compliance with internal rules concerning the use of electronic devices.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
The 2019 Policy Circular commenced, on the first page, with an explanation of its origins and aims. On this first page it declared that “[t]his policy takes effect immediately”. The 2019 Policy Circular was dated 13 February 2019. Thus, according to its terms, it took effect on 13 February 2019. However, it also declared that “[a]ll complaints of sexual harassment received prior to this date [would] continue to be dealt with under the provisions of [the 2015 Policy Circular]”. Quite clearly the 2019 Policy Circular was not intended to have retrospective operation. Having regard to this language it is unnecessary to draw upon the Tribunal’s case law, but it is to the effect that it is only in atypical and clear cases that normative legal documents are treated as having retrospective operation (see Judgments 4254, consideration 4, 3884, consideration 4 and 2315, considerations 22 and 23).
The allegation of sexual harassment raised by Ms S. in June 2019, should have been raised under the 2015 Policy Circular within a year of the events she identified. She should have raised under the policy the events of December 2015, by the end of 2016 at the latest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315, 3884, 4254
Keywords:
applicable law; time limit;
Judgment 4940
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[E]n application du paragraphe 1 de l’article 7 ter du Règlement du Tribunal, la possibilité de solliciter l’anonymat n’est ouverte qu’à tout requérant ou intervenant, ce qui s’explique par le fait que les noms de ceux-ci sont les seuls à être cités dans les jugements du Tribunal.
Par ailleurs, compte tenu de sa nature particulière ainsi que de son Statut spécifique, le Tribunal n’est, en tout état de cause, pas lié par les dispositions du droit de l’Union européenne, telles que celles du RGPD (voir les jugements 4493, au considérant 10, 4167, au considérant 7, et 3867, au considérant 2). Il n’y a, en conséquence, pas lieu de faire droit à la demande ainsi soumise par l’Organisation, sachant au demeurant qu’il n’est procédé dans le présent jugement à aucune divulgation de l’identité de tiers ou de données à caractère personnel concernant ceux-ci (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4759, au considérant 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493, 4759
Keywords:
anonymity; applicable law; european union;
Judgment 4939
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[E]n application du paragraphe 1 de l’article 7 ter du Règlement du Tribunal, la possibilité de solliciter l’anonymat n’est ouverte qu’à tout requérant ou intervenant, ce qui s’explique par le fait que les noms de ceux-ci sont les seuls à être cités dans les jugements du Tribunal.
Par ailleurs, compte tenu de sa nature particulière ainsi que de son Statut spécifique, le Tribunal n’est, en tout état de cause, pas lié par les dispositions du droit de l’Union européenne, telles que celles du RGPD (voir les jugements 4493, au considérant 10, 4167, au considérant 7, et 3867, au considérant 2). Il n’y a, en conséquence, pas lieu de faire droit à la demande ainsi soumise par l’Organisation, sachant au demeurant qu’il n’est procédé dans le présent jugement à aucune divulgation de l’identité de tiers ou de données à caractère personnel concernant ceux-ci (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4759, au considérant 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493, 4759
Keywords:
anonymity; applicable law; european union;
Judgment 4938
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[E]n application du paragraphe 1 de l’article 7 ter du Règlement du Tribunal, la possibilité de solliciter l’anonymat n’est ouverte qu’à tout requérant ou intervenant, ce qui s’explique par le fait que les noms de ceux-ci sont les seuls à être cités dans les jugements du Tribunal.
Par ailleurs, compte tenu de sa nature particulière ainsi que de son Statut spécifique, le Tribunal n’est, en tout état de cause, pas lié par les dispositions du droit de l’Union européenne, telles que celles du RGPD (voir les jugements 4493, au considérant 10, 4167, au considérant 7, et 3867, au considérant 2). Il n’y a, en conséquence, pas lieu de faire droit à la demande ainsi soumise par l’Organisation, sachant au demeurant qu’il n’est procédé dans le présent jugement à aucune divulgation de l’identité de tiers ou de données à caractère personnel concernant ceux-ci (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4759, au considérant 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493, 4759
Keywords:
anonymity; applicable law; european union;
Judgment 4936
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is improbable that Ms C. could accurately be described as a contractor or otherwise a person working at the IOM [Manila Administration Centre] MAC in the Philippines. If so, the Policy had no application to her. The harassing conduct towards her was not proscribed by the Policy. She was beyond its reach. A decision-maker imposing a disciplinary sanction, including the serious sanction of discharge, must be satisfied that the factual foundation for the finding of misconduct is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is open to the Tribunal to assess whether there was probative evidence warranting this conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 4832, consideration 36, 4364, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). Neither the Deputy Director General nor the Director General could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms C. had been a contractor or otherwise a person working at the IOM MAC in the Philippines and the Policy applied. Thus, they could not have been satisfied the complainant contravened the Policy having regard to his conduct directed to Ms C.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4364, 4832
Keywords:
applicable law; disciplinary measure; external collaborator; standard of proof;
Judgment 4895
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the date of his promotion with retroactive effect and seeks promotion from an earlier date.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes first of all that, in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, 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 (see, in particular, Judgments 4743, consideration 13, 3447, consideration 8, and 3023, consideration 11). It is plain from the written submissions in this regard that the complainant had ample opportunity to present his allegations and arguments in writing and that he was informed, by letter of 19 November 2019, that the chairperson of the chamber to which the internal appeal had been referred had decided not to hold a hearing, since the matter could be properly addressed on the basis of the documentation already filed by the complainant with the Committee.
In this case, the right to be heard orally by the Appeals Committee was indeed applicable at the time when the complainant filed his internal appeal on 23 May 2014. However, following the amendments introduced to the Implementing Rule for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations by Administrative Council decision CA/D 7/17 of 29 June 2017, which entered into force on 1 July 2017, Article 8(1) of the Service Regulations replaced the right to be heard orally with an option for the chairperson or presiding member of the chamber dealing with the appeal to hold a hearing if she or he considers it useful. According to the Tribunal’s case law, any amendment to the procedural rules applicable before an internal appeals body applies directly to cases pending before that body, unless a transitional provision provides otherwise (see, in particular, Judgment 3895, consideration 4). This not being the case in this instance, the chairperson of the chamber concerned, when he ruled on this point on 19 November 2019, correctly applied Article 8 of the aforementioned Service Regulations, in their new version then in force.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3023, 3447, 3895, 4743
Keywords:
applicable law; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
applicable law; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; discretion; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; oral proceedings; order; promotion; retroactivity; right to be heard; work appraisal;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant also relies on the Guidelines assuming that they were binding and that the Organization was obliged to comply strictly with all the provisions contained therein. Her reliance in this regard is misplaced. The Guidelines expressly state that they were not intended to be binding, but “for information only”. The language of the Guidelines is not prescriptive. They rather outline or suggest best practices. Thus, they are not part of the staff rules and regulations or of the complainant’s terms of appointment.
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character;
Judgment 4800
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her requests for special leave for very serious illness of a child.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[R]eliance on national law, which cannot be enforced against the EPO, does not create a legal obstacle to the application of rules and regulations governing permanent employees of the Office (see, in particular, Judgments 4553, consideration 4, and 4401, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4401, 4553
Keywords:
applicable law;
Judgment 4759
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[P]ursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 7B of the Rules of the Tribunal, only a complainant or intervener may request anonymity, since they are the only parties whose names are referred to in the Tribunal’s judgments.
In addition, in view of its special nature and its specific Statute, the Tribunal is not, in any event, bound by the provisions of EU law, such as those of the GDPR (see Judgments 4493, consideration 10, 4167, consideration 7, and 3867, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493
Keywords:
anonymity; applicable law; european union;
Judgment 4758
137th Session, 2024
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 end her employment and the breach of a promise of employment allegedly made to her.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[P]ursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 7B of the Rules of the Tribunal, only a complainant or intervener may request anonymity, since they are the only parties whose names are referred to in the Tribunal’s judgments.
In addition, in view of its special nature and its specific Statute, the Tribunal is not, in any event, bound by the provisions of EU law, such as those contained in the GDPR (see Judgments 4493, consideration 10, 4167, consideration 7, and 3867, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493
Keywords:
anonymity; applicable law; european union;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
