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

Judgment No. 4081

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

outside activity

Consideration 3

Extract:

This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 29 July 2015, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to reject the internal complaint against the aforementioned decision of 4 August 2014 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667

Keywords

express decision; implied decision; direct appeal to tribunal; impugned decision

Consideration 5

Extract:

The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and, in particular, the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. How extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 1817, consideration 6, and 3617, consideration 5).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617

Keywords

duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation

Consideration 5

Extract:

[A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927

Keywords

duty to substantiate decision; grounds; right of appeal; right to reply; motivation

Consideration 8

Extract:

According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of the executive head of an international organisation to allow or not to allow a staff member to carry out an assignment outside the organisation is a discretionary decision. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and thus will be set aside only if it has been taken without authority, if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of law or of fact, or if some essential fact has been overlooked or a clearly mistaken conclusion drawn from the evidence, or if there is misuse of authority (see Judgments 2377, consideration 5, and 3858, consideration 12).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3858

Keywords

outside activity; judicial review; discretion

Consideration 19

Extract:

The Tribunal recalls its case law according to which “[t]here will indeed be misuse of authority where an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation’s best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve” (see Judgment 1129, consideration 8). Moreover, “misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it” (see Judgment 3939, consideration 10).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 3939

Keywords

burden of proof; organisation's interest; misuse of authority



 
Last updated: 12.04.2019 ^ top