|
|
 |
|
|
Effect (607,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Effect
Total judgments found: 89
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4947
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to reject his requests for the suspension of action on the decision to suspend him with pay and with immediate effect, and on the decisions to extend that measure, pending the outcome of the internal appeal procedures.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
S’agissant de ce premier moyen, le requérant soutient d’abord que l’exigence de la première condition prévue au paragraphe c) de la règle 111.4, soit que «la décision n’a[it] pas été exécutée», priverait de leur droit à un recours «efficace» les membres du personnel faisant l’objet d’une mesure de suspension avec effet immédiat prise en vertu de la règle 110.5 pendant une procédure disciplinaire. […]
La CPI soutient pour sa part que le libellé de ce paragraphe c) serait clair et sans ambiguïté et que la rigueur des conséquences de cette application n’entacherait pas d’illégalité la décision de rejet qui en découle. Elle ajoute que la circonstance que la suspension de cette mesure ne soit pas possible en raison de son exécution immédiate ne signifie pas que le requérant ait été privé de son droit à un recours effectif. […]
Le Tribunal constate ensuite que, dans chacune de ces situations, au moment où la demande d’effet suspensif de l’intéressé a été introduite, la décision de le suspendre de ses fonctions avec maintien de son traitement pour une durée de trois mois continuait d’avoir des effets juridiques pour le reste de la période visée. Bien que le requérant se méprenne lui-même à ce sujet, ces décisions devaient donc être considérées comme n’ayant pas été entièrement exécutées, de telle sorte que l’exigence prévue au paragraphe c) de la règle 111.4 était bien satisfaite.
Le Tribunal considère que la Commission de recours a commis une erreur de droit en concluant que les décisions des 11 octobre 2021 et 10 janvier 2022 avaient été exécutées dès leur mise en application si bien que la première exigence de la règle 111.4 n’était, selon elle, pas satisfaite.
S’agissant de la décision du Procureur du 5 janvier 2022, en cause dans la première requête, cette erreur entache celle-ci d’illégalité, dès lors qu’elle avait été prise sur la base de l’avis de la Commission et sur le fondement de la seule considération selon laquelle la suspension de fonctions avait été exécutée.
Toutefois, si le droit du requérant à un recours effectif a pu en être affecté dans une certaine mesure, le Tribunal estime qu’il n’a subi aucun préjudice concret de ce fait. En effet, ainsi qu’il ressort de ce qui sera exposé ci-après, la demande de suspension d’exécution formée par le requérant se heurtait en tout état de cause à l’exigence de la règle 111.4 selon laquelle le requérant devait démontrer l’existence d’un préjudice irréparable et celle-ci aurait donc immanquablement été rejetée.
Keywords:
effect; internal appeal; suspension;
Judgment 4914
139th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close the investigation concluding that certain allegations against him were substantiated and to postpone the initiation of disciplinary proceedings until such time as he might be in a position to participate in such proceedings.
Considerations 10-12
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that there is a fundamental difficulty in much of the substance of the grievance that the complainant seeks to pursue in the present complaint. He cannot point to an enforceable claim which can be vindicated by the process introduced before the Tribunal. The subject matter, namely the decision of the Global Fund to close its investigation on alleged misconduct, does not, without more, adversely affect the complainant.
In Judgment 4475, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that: “The Tribunal’s case law distinguishes between final decisions and other procedural steps leading to a final decision. Ordinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final one. They may not be attacked directly before the Tribunal, but they may be impugned as part of a challenge to the final decision (see, for example, Judgments 2366, consideration 16, 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3860, considerations 5 and 6, 3958, consideration 15, and 3961, consideration 4).”
In Judgment 3236, consideration 11, the Tribunal furthermore noted that “[a]buse of authority in relation to the initiation of an investigation may, if proven, taint a final decision taken based on the results of that investigation; however, it must be challenged in the context of that decision”, and it also relevantly stated that “[s]imilarly, an allegation of a breach of the right to due process in an adversarial proceeding must be brought in the context of the final decision arising from that proceeding”.
And in a factual setting that bears resemblance to the present situation, in Judgment 4814, consideration 7, the Tribunal underlined that “it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that procedural steps taken in the course of a process leading to a final decision cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal, though they may be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against that final decision (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14). In the present case, the refusal to act on the request for the [Internal Oversight Service (IOS)’s] divestiture is part of the process leading to a decision resulting from the investigation report (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3958, consideration 15). Accordingly, any alleged irregularities in the investigation could only be raised in the context of a complaint directed against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against [the complainant], provided that she first exhausted the internal remedies available to her, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.” (See also Judgment 4861, consideration 14.)
The Tribunal considers that the decision of the Global Fund to close the investigation did not affect the complainant’s legal situation, either by changing his status or even by making any kind of statement in this regard, and this measure did not constitute, as a result, an “administrative decision” concerning the complainant (see Judgment 2364, consideration 4). The Executive Director was quite right, therefore, to follow in the impugned decision the recommendation of the Appeal Board and to consider the complainant’s internal appeal irreceivable.
From that standpoint, the Tribunal notes that the complainant’s assertion that the investigation could somehow be considered as a stand-alone process, independent and detached from the disciplinary process or measures that it may lead to, is wrong and represents a misguided approach to the factual reality of this matter. The investigation at issue was clearly part of a process that could culminate, if anything, in a disciplinary process and, ultimately, in a disciplinary measure. At the moment the investigation was closed as it was, that process was, and still is indeed, incomplete. In light of this, the investigation cannot be considered in isolation simply for the sake of argument. This is even more true in a context where, like here, the Global Fund expressly stated that these future steps in terms of disciplinary review or process would not take place until the complainant was in a position to participate, and thus implicitly but necessarily, was able to present his position, his contestation and his defence, in accordance with his due process rights that were here, in essence, acknowledged by the Global Fund.
While the opening of a disciplinary procedure could have exposed the complainant to a potential disciplinary measure, such procedure would, at the same time, have afforded him specific procedural safeguards. And, in the event that his legitimate interests would have been affected, he would not have been vulnerable to an arbitrary act by the Administration given the possibility of filing an appeal at the end of the disciplinary procedure.
In the present case, the decision to close the investigation had no adverse effect on the complainant in itself, as no decision was made regarding either a disciplinary procedure or a disciplinary measure. Without the possibility, as established by the record, of ever seeing a disciplinary process, let alone a disciplinary measure, as a result of this investigation, the complainant is unable to substantiate any adverse effect other than mere speculations as to what one could infer from the existence of this investigation report in his personnel file. And contrary to these speculations, the record is clear about the fact that the complainant did not have the opportunity to comment upon the report because of his illness, and that he strongly denied the allegations against him, such that this investigation report could certainly not be considered by anyone as a complete and final assessment in and by itself. This is precisely what the Global Fund indeed emphasized in its letter of 8 October 2020.
As a result, the Tribunal considers that, similarly to the internal appeal filed by the complainant, the current complaint is irreceivable, since the impugned decision to close the contested investigation is merely a step in a process outside the context of the disciplinary process or measure that it may lead to – which, in this case, will most likely never happen – and certainly not a challengeable administrative decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236, 4475, 4814
Keywords:
effect; final decision; investigation; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3357
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
"[The Organisation] took the view that, in accordance with the principle that the Tribunal’s judgments produce their effects only between the parties, the complainant, who was neither a complainant nor an intervener in any of the cases giving rise to those three judgments, could not rely on the rights which those judgments conferred on their beneficiaries.
This reasoning per se is certainly entirely consistent with the Tribunal’s long-established case law, as confirmed, for example, in similar cases in Judgments 2463, under 13, 3002, under 14 and 15, or 3181, under 9 and 10."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2463, 3002, 3181
Keywords:
effect;
Judgment 3356
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"It [...] took the view that, in accordance with the principle that the Tribunal’s judgments produce their effects only between the parties, the complainant, who was neither a complainant nor an intervener in any of the cases giving rise to those three judgments, could not rely on the rights which those judgments conferred on their beneficiaries.
This reasoning per se is certainly entirely consistent with the Tribunal’s long-established case law, as confirmed, for example, in similar cases in Judgments 2463, under 13, 3002, under 14 and 15, or 3181, under 9 and 10."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2463, 3002, 3181
Keywords:
effect;
Judgment 3355
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
"[The organisation] based its dismissal of the complainant’s claims on the [...] view that, in accordance with the principle that the Tribunal’s judgments produce their effects only between the parties, the complainant, who was neither a complainant nor an intervener in any of the cases giving rise to those three judgments, could not rely on the rights which those judgments conferred on their beneficiaries.
This reasoning per se is certainly entirely consistent with the Tribunal’s long-established case law, as confirmed, for example, in similar cases in Judgments 2463, under 13, 3002, under 14 and 15, or 3181, under 9 and 10."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2463, 2985, 2986, 3002, 3034, 3181
Keywords:
effect; judgment of the tribunal;
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 3197
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the application for review of Judgment 2946, as there was no new fact giving rise to review.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal explained in Judgment 2693, under 2: 'A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2).'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270, 2693
Keywords:
application for review; condition; effect; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"A practice that is inconsistent with staff regulations cannot obtain legal force (see Judgment 1390, under 27)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1390
Keywords:
effect; practice; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3033
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]ny decision to terminate an employee's contract must be clear and precise and must comply with the applicable formal requirements. Moreover, like any decision unfavourable to an official, it cannot take effect before the date on which he or she is notified of it (see Judgment 1531, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1531
Keywords:
cause of action; date of notification; decision; effect; formal requirements; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion of icj; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;
Judgment 2986
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
"While the terms of a contract and some decisions will in principle give rise to acquired rights, this is not necessarily true of [the] provisions [of the Staff Regulations and Rules]."
Keywords:
acquired right; consequence; contract; decision; difference; effect; general principle; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2940
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2926
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
"The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;
Judgment 2915
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is correct that a vested right cannot be divested without the consent of the person to whom it belongs. However, it does not follow that a corresponding condition or obligation - in this case, the condition or obligation to retire at 60 - depends on continuing consent. A condition once accepted or an obligation once entered [...] endures unless and until it is performed or the person is released from it either absolutely or by substitution of a different and mutually agreed condition or obligation."
Keywords:
complainant; condition; effect; lack of consent; successive contracts; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2850
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's contract, issued on 18 July 2007 and effective as of 30 November, preceded his actual separation from service by more than four months. The Tribunal is of the view that in the present case that period of time was long enough for it to be deemed to comply with [the Organization's obligation to give the complainant reasonable notice]."
Keywords:
contract; date; effect; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 2848
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 2592, under 14, it is well established in the case law that «[t]here is a binding contract if there is manifest on both sides an intention to contract and if all the essential terms have been settled and if all that remains to be done is a formality which requires no further agreement»."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2592
Keywords:
acceptance; binding character; contract; effect; intention of parties; law of contract; offer;
Judgment 2783
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The complainant, who parks his car in the Vienna International Centre (VIC), is challenging the decision to double the monthly parking fee effective 1 January 2007.
"In the present case, the impugned decision affects the complainant not as a staff member of the Agency but in his capacity as a user of the VIC garage. Moreover, the financial conditions governing the use of this garage, which is merely a facility offered to the staff of the various international organisations occupying the VIC, do not form part of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the Agency's Staff Regulations.
'While the payment of the fee for the use of the garage does in fact take the form of a direct deduction from the Agency's staff members' salaries, this is simply a means of payment adopted for convenience sake, which does not in any way alter the nature of the fee and does not, in particular, have the effect of incorporating it into the complainant's terms of employment. In this respect, the deduction is comparable to those which an employer may effect from an employee's wages for the purpose of paying, for example, a tax or contribution that is levied at source; here too, the fact that the tax or contribution is so deducted does not afford grounds for considering it to be part of the employee's terms of employment.
This dispute does not therefore fall within the scope of the [...] provisions of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; competence of tribunal; condition; contract; deduction; effect; facilities; iloat statute; increase; official; payment; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension.
"It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; complainant; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
