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

Terms of appointment

You searched for:
Keywords: Terms of appointment
Total judgments found: 1,731

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 | next >



  • Judgment 3253


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised that internal appeals are an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony (see, for example, Judgment 3184, consideration 15). Also, the internal appeal process is ordinarily an extremely significant element of the entire system of review of administrative decisions affecting the rights of staff employed by organisations which have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3222, consideration 9). Moreover, every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on his or her performance on which her or his career may depend (see, for example, Judgment 3241, consideration 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3222, 3241

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3252


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "There is a general principle applied by this Tribunal that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see Judgment 2414, consideration 24)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; contract; decision; fixed-term; grounds; patere legem; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3251


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant's request to be included on the list of eligible candidates for personal promotion was dismissed by the Tribunal.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that the ILO conducted the 2008 personal promotion exercise in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The ILO properly applied the new Office Procedure (No. 125, which took effect from 22 October 2009) to the 2008 personal promotion exercise. [...] Considering that the 2008 promotion exercise was launched after Office Procedure No. 125 took effect, the ILO was correct to follow its provisions for the promotion exercise, and not those of Circular No. 334, Series 6, as the complainant suggests. The complainant did not have any acquired right to the 2008 promotion exercise, promotions being considered “an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal” (see Judgments 2668, under 11, 1500, under 4, 1109, under 4, and 1973, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Office Procedure No. 125; Circular No. 334, Series 6
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1500, 1973, 2668

    Keywords:

    acquired right; condition; discretion; interpretation; judicial review; organisation's duties; personal promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 3250


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "While the conduct of management which is necessary and reasonable would not constitute harassment, the present case demonstrates how continued mismanagement showing gross negligence on the part of the Organization cannot justify any longer the “managerial need” for the repeated temporary transfers of the complainant which had an ill effect on her. Taken individually, the isolated incidents [...] can perhaps be considered as improper but managerially justified, but taken as a whole the effect is much more damaging to the complainant and can no longer be excused by administrative necessity."

    Keywords:

    appraisal of facts; complaint allowed in part; harassment; injury; negligence; organisation's duties; professional injury; transfer; working conditions;



  • Judgment 3249


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint in which the complainant requested the establishment of a new version of his staff report.

    Judgment's keywords

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; performance report;



  • Judgment 3248


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint being almost identical to the previous one and the complainant having no new argument, the Tribunal considered the complaint to be irreceivable under the principle of res judicata.

    Judgment's keywords

    Keywords:

    performance report; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3247


    116th Session, 2014
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.

    Judgment's keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; decision; international civil servant; organisation; receivability; termination;



  • Judgment 3246


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant refused to undergo a new medical examination that the Tribunal had ordered. The Tribunal considered that it could not rule on the complaint which is thus dismissed.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant wilfully refused to undergo the specialised medical examination ordered in Judgment 3145, it is not in a position to rule on her complaint, which must therefore be dismissed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3145

    Keywords:

    expert inquiry; medical examination; refusal;

    Judgment's keywords

    Keywords:

    expert inquiry; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 3241


    115th Session, 2013
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and may be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted. This is buttressed by the statement of principle in Judgment 466, under 3, that such matters may be so challenged since every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on her or his performance, on which her or his career will depend. However, such a decision must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not so challenged, the decision becomes final and cannot be reopened (see Judgment 3059, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 466, 3059

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation; performance report; staff regulations and rules; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 3240


    115th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant did not take issue with the use of the wrong form for his performance appraisal or with the fact that his immediate supervisor did not conduct the evaluation, this does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to act in compliance with its own Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual provisions implementing those rules (see Judgment 3177, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; written rule;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "It is a well-established principle governing probation that in addition to “[identifying] in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken”, an organisation must also “give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy” (see Judgment 2788, under 1)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2788

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confirmation of appointment; organisation; organisation's duties; probation; purpose; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3236


    115th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Concerning the initiation of the investigation itself, the Tribunal’s case law is clear that a decision to begin an investigation into misconduct at that stage is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364

    Keywords:

    decision; inquiry; misconduct; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 3233


    115th Session, 2013
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "An unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgment 2861, under 37). The question as to whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see Judgment 2553, under 6). There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of the acts in question intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), and the Tribunal’s case law has always required that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (see Judgment 2100, under 13)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2553, 2861

    Keywords:

    appraisal of facts; burden of proof; conduct; definition; flaw; harassment; international civil servant;



  • Judgment 3228


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal’s case law, issues raised by staff reports “are discretionary and the Tribunal will set aside or amend a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. Those criteria are the more stringent because the EPO has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a joint body whose members are directly familiar with the workings of the Office.” (See Judgment 1688, under 5, and also Judgments 806, under 15, and 1144, under 7.) It is clear from the case law that the Tribunal will not interfere with the discretionary assessment of the decision-maker unless there is a reviewable error."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Circular No. 246
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 806, 1144, 1688

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; discretion; fact overlooked; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; rebuttal;



  • Judgment 3224


    115th Session, 2013
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; material error; organisation's duties; patere legem; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 3223


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
    The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; complaint allowed in part; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3215


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804

    Keywords:

    accident; burden of proof; damages; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; negligence; organisation's duties; service-incurred; working conditions;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
    "Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO

    Keywords:

    acceptance; age limit; appraisal of facts; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension; organisation's interest; request; retirement; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, and plainly there is nothing abnormal in stipulating that an extension of appointment beyond that age limit, which by definition constitutes an exceptional measure, can be granted only if it is in the interest of the service."

    Keywords:

    age limit; career; condition; exception; extension; organisation's interest; retirement; right;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
    "In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."

    Keywords:

    age limit; composition; discretion; extension; request; retirement; right; selection board;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
    "The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
    [T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension; general principle; grounds; international civil servant; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request; retirement; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 3213


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "International organisations have a duty of care towards their employees and must provide clear rules and regulations as well as clarifications of such when requested, but they cannot be solely responsible for every situation stemming from confusion regarding said rules. Employees are also charged with the duty to inform themselves, and to request clarification when necessary so that the system can work efficiently to the best advantage of both the Organisation and the staff members either as a group or individually (see, for example, Judgment 2997, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2997

    Keywords:

    duty of care; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal [...] does not have the power to award pensions outside of the Pension Scheme Regulations, nor is it appropriate for the Organisation to award a recurring “gift” under Article 87 of the Service Regulations, mirroring a pension."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 87 of the Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; pension; pension entitlements;



  • Judgment 3209


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 13 and 14

    Extract:

    The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
    "[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
    The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; iloat statute; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; receivability; request;



  • Judgment 3206


    115th Session, 2013
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant challenges the decision to appoint a colleague to a grade D-2 position through a direct recruitment procedure. The Tribunal finds that there was no valid reason to apply such a procedure. “The Director General was therefore right to conclude […] that [the] appointment […] was unlawful. However, he was mistaken in believing that this did not oblige him to withdraw that appointment. Since this unlawful decision was the subject of an internal appeal validly filed by another staff member who had cause of action, the Director General had no option but to withdraw it. [T]he fact that [the colleague in question] had left the Organization’s service in the meantime did not alter that duty […].”

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; appointment; cause of action; competition; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision quashed; exception; executive head; flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; retirement;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    “[T]he complainant has no cause of action in seeking the repayment of [the] emoluments [paid to the colleague whose appointment he challenges] or calling into question her pension rights, as these measures would have no bearing on his own situation (see, for example, Judgment 2281, under 4(a) and (b)).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2281

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; appointment; cause of action; complaint allowed in part; lack of injury; locus standi; pension entitlements; refund; request; salary;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 | next >


 
Last updated: 17.12.2014 ^ top