|
|
 |
|
|
Injunction (672,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Injunction
Total judgments found: 31
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5197
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the arrangements for the payment of the additional compensation to the retirement pension for health reasons provided for under the new invalidity scheme.
Consideration 7
Extract:
«[L]a conclusion du requérant tendant à ce que soit ordonnée la mise en place d’une procédure de versement de la compensation additionnelle qui évite que le préfinancement de l’impôt national soit à sa charge [est] en tout état de cause, […] irrecevable du fait que le Tribunal n’est pas compétent pour formuler des injonctions de cette nature envers une organisation internationale (voir, en ce sens, le jugement 4885, au considérant 12).»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4885
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 5163
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, as a staff union representative and Vice-President of the Staff Committee, contests the decision to use external suppliers and cancel an ongoing recruitment process for regular staff for the functions thus outsourced.
Consideration 1
Extract:
Le Tribunal n’a [...] pas compétence pour prononcer à l’égard d’une organisation internationale des injonctions de la nature de celles qui sont ainsi sollicitées par le requérant (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4769, au considérant 10, et 4768, au considérant 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4768, 4769
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 5160
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [L]es conclusions de l’intéressé tendant à ce que le président et le secrétaire du Conseil de discipline soient reconnus comme auteurs de ce harcèlement tendent, en tout état de cause, à la formulation d’une injonction que le Tribunal n’aurait pas compétence pour prononcer. »
Keywords:
harassment; injunction;
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 5057
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[L]e requérant demande au Tribunal d’ordonner l’ouverture d’une procédure disciplinaire à l’encontre de M. M. du fait des représailles qu’il impute à celui-ci. Mais, outre que, comme il a été dit, l’annulation des décisions litigieuses n’induit nullement une reconnaissance de la réalité de ces représailles, le Tribunal n’a pas compétence, en tout état de cause, pour prononcer des injonctions de cette nature (voir notamment, au sujet de conclusions à des fins analogues, les jugements 4512, au considérant 6, 4313, au considérant 11, ou 4241, au considérant 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241, 4313, 4512
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; injunction;
Judgment 5045
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[The complainant] seeks an order that the IAEA issue a Secretariat Directive about the setting aside of the administrative decision of 8 December 2021. In substance, this order would, if made, be a mandatory injunction directed to the organisation. Such orders cannot be made by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4065, consideration 9, and 3506, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 4065
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 5044
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[The complainant] seeks an order that the organisation issue a Secretariat Directive about the setting aside of the administrative decision of 8 December 2021. In substance, this order would, if made, be a mandatory injunction directed to the organisation. Such orders cannot be made by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4065, consideration 9, and 3506, consideration 18). These various claims are rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 4065
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 5039
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
[The complainant] seeks an order directing the IAEA to engage in discussions with the Austrian Federal Ministry of European and International Affairs, presumably to clarify the position or persuade the Ministry to alter its position […] [T]his order would, if made, be a mandatory injunction directed to the organisation. Such orders cannot be made by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4065, consideration 9, and 3506, consideration 18). This claim is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 4065
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 5038
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The complainant also seeks an order directing the IAEA to engage in discussions with the Austrian Federal Ministry of European and International Affairs presumably to clarify the position or persuade the Ministry to alter its position […] In substance, this order would, if made, be a mandatory injunction directed to the organisation. Such orders cannot be made by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4065, consideration 9, and 3506, consideration 18). This claim is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 4065
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4997
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his internal appeal relating to a letter which he intended to send to the French representative on the Administrative Council of the EPO.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[S]i l’intéressé demande que soit ordonnée la transmission du courrier ci-dessus évoqué à la délégation française auprès du Conseil d’administration, le Tribunal n’a pas compétence, en tout état de cause, pour prononcer une injonction de cette nature à l’égard d’une organisation internationale (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4601, au considérant 14, ou 2058, au considérant 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2058, 4601
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4996
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who filed a harassment complaint, challenges the decision to close the investigative process at the preliminary evaluation stage.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Le Tribunal observe au surplus que, comme le fait valoir à juste titre la défenderesse, certaines de ces conclusions sont irrecevables en ce qu’elles tendent à la formulation d’injonctions qu’il n’aurait pas compétence pour prononcer, ou en ce qu’elles ont été présentées pour la première fois devant lui en méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, de son Statut.
Keywords:
injunction; new claim;
Judgment 4885
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his training duties.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that some of the complainant’s claims are, moreover, irreceivable as they seek declarations of law (see, for example, Judgments 4700, consideration 2, or 3876, consideration 2) or injunctions that it does not have competence to issue.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876, 4700
Keywords:
declaration of law; injunction;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant misunderstands and misconceives the role of the Tribunal in this regard. It is not for the Tribunal to issue orders of the nature sought against individuals who are not parties to the pending dispute.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4818
138th Session, 2024
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision denying her and her dependents an individual medical insurance plan following her separation from service.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for an order to convert her GMIP into an IMIP is irreceivable, as the Tribunal’s case law clearly states that it lacks the competence to issue orders of this kind against international organisations (see, for example, Judgments 4804, consideration 2, 4065, consideration 9, 4039, consideration 17, and 2058, consideration 13). Her alternative claim for enrolment in the GMIP under terms provided to retirees also exceeds the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2058, 4039, 4065, 4804
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;
Consideration 2
Extract:
By one of his claims, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order that the EPO publish, in the EPO Gazette and/or on the intranet, the President’s […] decision on internal appeal RI/31/08 […], accompanied by a summary of the facts approved by himself. However, the Tribunal is not competent to make orders of this kind against international organisations (see Judgments 4065, consideration 9, 4039, consideration 17, and 2058, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2058, 4039, 4065
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction; publication;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] considers that the complainant’s request for Eurocontrol to be “ordered to comply” with Articles 7 and 30 of the Staff Regulations cannot be granted. It is settled case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue such general declarations or declarations of law, or declaratory orders (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 6, 4492, consideration 8, and 4246, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4246, 4492, 4637
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the complainant’s claim for Eurocontrol to be “ordered to comply” with Articles 7 and 30 of the Staff Regulations cannot be granted. It is settled case law that it is not for the Tribunal to issue such general declarations or declarations of law, or declaratory orders (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 6, 4492, consideration 8, and 4246, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4246, 4492, 4637
Keywords:
injunction;
Judgment 4765
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open an administrative investigation into his conduct, and the dismissal of his harassment complaint.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant also requests the Tribunal to order Eurocontrol to conduct an administrative investigation into information which he had considered should be disclosed to the Organisation pursuant to Article 22a of the Staff Regulations, it is not for the Tribunal in any event to make an order of this kind.
Keywords:
injunction; opening of an investigation;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 5
Extract:
An order of […] measures [to mitigate the consequences of the complainant’s alleged harassment], including to permanently assign the complainant to another team, is beyond the Tribunal’s competence (see Judgment 4096, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4096
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; injunction;
Judgment 4640
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a series of management acts regarding his administrative status.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant requests a retroactive upgrading of his post to grade A2 in career group A4/1 in relation to his post of Brand Manager occupied as of 2004 and to the position of Application Manager occupied as of 1 November 2006. These requests are rejected as a decision as to the level of a post is within the purview of the competent authorities charged with evaluating and classifying posts pursuant to the applicable rules and not within the purview of the Tribunal, which will only determine the legality of the exercise of that power (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 2, and 2514, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514, 4437
Keywords:
injunction; judicial review; post classification;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
