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 > retraite

Judgment No. 4089

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

retirement; age limit; extension beyond retirement age; complaint dismissed

Consideration 7

Extract:

[I]t was open to the Director General to view the complainant’s conduct giving rise to and the subsequent conduct in relation to the judgment debt as falling short of the standards demanded of international civil servants. Accordingly, and subject to the various legal arguments of the complainant, it was open to the Director General to conclude it was not in the interests of the Agency to extend the complainant’s appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

Keywords

retirement; age limit; staff member's duties; conduct; discretion; organisation's interest; extension beyond retirement age

Consideration 8

Extract:

[T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2377, 3285

Keywords

competence of tribunal; retirement; age limit; judicial review; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age

Consideration 16

Extract:

[T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that “[e]ven though colleagues of the complainant’s thought him suitable and recommended extending his appointment, the decision was not theirs to make” (see Judgment 1038, consideration 4). While those observations concerned the extension of an appointment (without an impending retirement), they are apt to apply in a case such as the present.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1038

Keywords

analogy; retirement; age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age

Consideration 13

Extract:

The fourth argument is that the decision not to extend “amount[ed] to a violation of the principle of double jeopardy”. The complainant refers to Judgment 2861, consideration 50, in which the Tribunal said “a person [...] [cannot] be subject to two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions for the same conduct”. The short answer to this argument is that there was no adverse administrative decision concerning the complainant referable to the judgment of the Austrian court and what followed, before the decision not to extend her appointment was made. There were no two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions. This argument is unfounded and is rejected.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2861

Keywords

double jeopardy



 
Dernière mise à jour: 27.10.2021 ^ haut