L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > renvoi devant l'organisation

Judgment No. 4066

Decision

1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted to the FAO in accordance with consideration 11 of the judgment.
3. The FAO shall pay the complainant 17,000 euros in moral damages.
4. The FAO shall pay the complainant 1,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; promotion; personal promotion

Consideration 3

Extract:

The Tribunal’s case law does not guarantee to staff members of an international organization an automatic right to promotion (see Judgment 3495, under 11). It is also well established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. For this reason, such decisions are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2835, under 5, and 3279, under 11). Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision (see Judgment 1827, under 6). The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 1109, under 4).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1109, 1827, 2835, 3279, 3495

Keywords

promotion; judicial review; discretion

Consideration 4

Extract:

The FAO raises receivability as a threshold issue submitting that the complainant did not raise in her internal appeal some of the issues which she raises in her complaint. However, the Tribunal finds that the FAO has not distinguished between new pleas, which the complainant may rely on to support her claims, and new claims, which would be irreceivable as they extend the scope of the claims submitted during the internal appeal process (see Judgment 4009, under 10, and the judgments cited therein).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4009

Keywords

new claim; new plea

Consideration 7

Extract:

It is a basic rule of interpretation that words which are clear and unambiguous are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning and that words must be construed objectively in their context and in keeping with their purport and purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4031, under 5, and 3744, under 8).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3744, 4031

Keywords

interpretation; interpretation of rules

Consideration 11

Extract:

It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to promote the complainant to the P-4 grade. However, as the impugned decision will be set aside, the matter will be remitted to the FAO for it to reconsider the decision not to promote her to the P-4 grade in 2013.

Keywords

competence of tribunal; case sent back to organisation; promotion; ratione materiae

Consideration 12

Extract:

As to the complainant’s request that the CDP’s written feedback be removed from her personnel file, consistent precedent requires that a staff member should be notified of any document that is placed on her or his file and be given an opportunity to respond to it (see, for example, Judgment 3487, under 9). The written feedback is an integral part of the complainant’s personnel file. The record shows that the complainant had an opportunity to respond to the written assessment. Her written response also forms part of her file. No order to remove the written feedback from her personnel file will be made. It is also assumed that the present judgment will be included in her personnel file.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3487

Keywords

judgment of the tribunal; personal file

Consideration 11

Extract:

It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to promote the complainant to the P-4 grade. However, as the impugned decision will be set aside, the matter will be remitted to the FAO for it to reconsider the decision not to promote her to the P-4 grade in 2013.

Keywords

case sent back to organisation



 
Dernière mise à jour: 02.09.2020 ^ haut