APPOINTMENT
You searched for:
Keywords: APPOINTMENT
Total judgments found: 507
< 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 | next >
Judgment 2142
93rd session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 16 AND 17
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANTS' REQUEST FOR MUTUALLY AGREED SEPARATION WAS NOT ALLOWED. "THEY SUGGEST THAT A NUMBER OF STAFF MEMBERS WHO WERE GRANTED A MUTUALLY AGREED SEPARATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO BENEFIT FROM THE EXERCISE [...] THE COMPLAINANTS REQUEST THAT THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF UNDERTAKE A COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE [...] SELECTION PROCESS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THAT THEY THEMSELVES, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL WILL NOT MAKE AN ORDER OF THE TYPE SOUGHT. THE DOCUMENTS OF THE [MUTUALLY AGREED SEPARATION] EXERCISE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY APPLY TO OTHER STAFF MEMBERS, ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE COMPLAINANTS' REPRESENTATIVE ENJOYS NO PRIVILEGED POSITION IN THIS REGARD. WITHOUT SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMPLAINANTS' UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS [...] THE TRIBUNAL WILL NOT SANCTION, OR ITSELF UNDERTAKE, A WHOLESALE 'FISHING EXPEDITION' BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMETHING MAY TURN UP."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; iloat; international civil servant; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; mistake of law; procedure; refusal; request; right;
CONSIDERATION 18
Extract:
"IN A SELECTION FOR A POST, THE MOST WORTHY CANDIDATES ARE SELECTED 'IN', I.E. TO BECOME MEMBERS OF STAFF, WHEREAS IN A MUTUALLY AGREED SEPARATION EXERCISE THESE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE SELECTED 'OUT' I.E. NOT TO BE RELEASED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVICE. THE INTEREST OF THE ORGANISATION, WHICH IS PARAMOUNT IN EACH CASE, REQUIRES THAT THE BEST CANDIDATES BE EMPLOYED AND PROMOTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND THAT THEY BE RETAINED IN THE ORGANISATION'S SERVICE IN THE SECOND."
Keywords:
agreed termination; appointment; candidate; competition; organisation; organisation's interest; post; procedure; promotion; qualifications;
Judgment 2129
93rd session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 14
Extract:
THE ORGANIZATION'S REGIONAL OFFICE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BRAZZAVILLE (CONGO) TO HARARE (ZIMBABWE). THE AMOUNT OF THE PER DIEM THE COMPLAINANTS WERE PAID WAS PROGRESSIVELY REDUCED. "SINCE THE TRAVEL PER DIEM IS MERELY INTENDED TO COVER THE ESSENTIAL EXPENSES OF A STAFF MEMBER ON DUTY TRAVEL, INCLUDING LODGING AND FOOD, A HIGH RATE OF TRAVEL PER DIEM CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WHERE DUTY TRAVEL, WHICH BY NATURE IMPLIES THAT THE STAFF MEMBER WILL CONTINUE TO WORK PRIMARILY AT HIS OR HER ORIGINAL DUTY STATION, LASTS FOR TWO YEARS OR MORE."
Keywords:
allowance; amount; assignment; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; extension; international civil servant; payment; period; place of origin; purpose; rate; reduction; transfer; travel expenses;
Judgment 2125
93rd session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 5 AND 6
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST TO HAVE HIS CONTRACT EXTENDED BEYOND RETIREMENT AGE WAS NOT ALLOWED. "ON THE MERITS, THE AGENCY IS UNDOUBTEDLY RIGHT IN POINTING OUT THAT THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HAS DISCRETION IN THE MATTER, OVER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS ONLY A LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW. THIS DISCRETION ENABLES THE AGENCY TO DEPART FROM THE RULE GOVERNING THE NORMAL AGE OF RETIREMENT. [...]
ALTHOUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CAN DETERMINE THE INTEREST OF THE AGENCY, HIS DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON CLEAR AND COHERENT REASONS. IN THIS CASE, THE REASON GIVEN - THAT THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION CONTAINED NO INDICATION AS TO WHETHER ANY OF THE CRITERIA [ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE MAY AUTHORISE SUCH AN EXTENSION] HAD BEEN SATISFIED - IS NOT VALID, AND THE REASON BASED ON 'REJUVENATION' OF THE STAFF IS TOO GENERAL TO CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REFUSAL OF THE COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST." THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS THAT "THIS REASON IS NOT IN ITSELF REPREHENSIBLE, BUT IT COULD BE USED TO JUSTIFY A SYSTEMATIC REFUSAL TO DEPART FROM THE RULE GOVERNING THE NORMAL AGE OF RETIREMENT. [BY SETTING OUT THE CRITERIA] THE IAEA ESTABLISHED FOR ITSELF A NUMBER OF RULES WHICH IT MUST APPLY."
Keywords:
age limit; complaint allowed; contract; criteria; decision; definition; discretion; exception; executive head; extension; grounds; iloat; international civil servant; judicial review; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; patere legem; refusal; request; retirement; written rule;
Judgment 2122
93rd session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED HER CANDIDACY FOR A POST OF LEGAL ASSISTANT. HER APPLICATION WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FULFIL THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION. SHE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF STAFF REGULATION ARTICLE 30 AND THOSE OF RULE OF APPLICATION NO. 2 WHICH SETS OUT CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY. THE TRIBUNAL FINDS "NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF STAFF REGULATION ARTICLE 30 AND THOSE OF RULE OF APPLICATION NO. 2. [...] CONTRARY TO WHAT THE COMPLAINANT APPEARS TO SUGGEST, THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS SAYS THAT THE 'SELECTION OF CANDIDATES SHALL BE BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS' DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE SETTING OF ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS. [...] THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN RULE NO. 2 OFFEND AGAINST NO PROVISION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS. [...] THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS SET IN THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION, AND THE AGENCY WAS THEREFORE RIGHT TO REJECT HER APPLICATION."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; complainant; condition; criteria; degree; difference; enforcement; grounds; post; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2120
93rd session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 10 AND 11
Extract:
A PARAGRAPH OF A NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ORGANISATION'S SECRETARIAT STIPULATES THAT THE SPOUSE OF A STAFF MEMBER SHALL NORMALLY NOT BE EMPLOYED IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT AS THE STAFF MEMBER. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS THAT "THE PROVISION IMPROPERLY DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT BASED ON THEIR MARITAL STATUS AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIP [...]. DISCRIMINATION ON SUCH GROUNDS IS CONTRARY TO THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THOSE WHICH GOVERN THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE, AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS. [...]
ALL FORMS OF IMPROPER DISCRIMINATION ARE PROHIBITED. WHAT IS IMPROPER DISCRIMINATION? IT IS, AT LEAST IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT, THE DRAWING OF DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN STAFF MEMBERS OR CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT ON THE BASIS OF IRRELEVANT PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. MANIFESTLY, THE FACT THAT TWO STAFF MEMBERS MAY BE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER IS NOT RELEVANT TO THEIR COMPETENCE OR THE CAPACITY OF EITHER ONE OF THEM TO FULFIL THEIR OBLIGATIONS. AND, IF IT IS THOUGHT THAT MARITAL OR INTIMATE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STAFF MEMBERS MAY CREATE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS, SUCH PROBLEMS MUST BE DEALT WITH IN WAYS THAT DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EITHER OF THEM AS A RESULT OF SUCH RELATIONSHIPS. THE TRIBUNAL NOTES THAT [THE NOTICE] AS IT IS WRITTEN, BESIDES BEING TOO BROAD, IS NOT EVEN EFFECTIVE IN DEALING WITH THE PRESUMED POSSIBILITY OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR FAVOURITISM FOR IT IS SILENT ON NON-MARITAL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS. IT ALSO FAILS TO DEAL WITH MARRIAGES TAKING PLACE AFTER APPOINTMENT".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil servant; international civil service principles; international instrument; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; same; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Judgment 2116
92nd session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 5
Extract:
"THE [ORGANIZATION] WAS CAVALIER IN THE WAY IN WHICH IT INFORMED [THE COMPLAINANT] OF WHAT WAS TO BECOME OF THE SELECTION PROCESS. FOR THE COMPLAINANT IT WAS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT THAT SHE BE INFORMED PROMPTLY WHETHER SHE COULD EXPECT TO BE APPOINTED, SO THAT SHE COULD START TO LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB IF NEED BE. SHE CONTENDS, AND THE [ORGANIZATION] DOES NOT DEMUR, THAT SHE HAD THE MORE REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC AS SHE HAD BEEN TOLD UNOFFICIALLY THAT OF ALL THE APPLICANTS, SHE STOOD THE BEST CHANCE OF BEING APPOINTED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE [ORGANIZATION] OUGHT TO HAVE [INFORMED] HER [...] THAT RECLASSIFICATION WAS A SERIOUS POSSIBILITY FOR THE POST IN QUESTION. BUT IT DID NOT [...] THEREAFTER, WHEN A DECISION WAS TAKEN [...] TO WITHDRAW THE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT, THE ORGANIZATION SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CANDIDATES IMMEDIATELY. [...] THE COMPLAINANT WAS SO INFORMED IN WRITING [...] NEARLY FOUR MONTHS LATER. EVEN IF [...] SHE WAS INFORMED BY TELEPHONE [...] WRITTEN NOTIFICATION WAS NONETHELESS AN OBLIGATION. THE COMPLAINANT'S PERSONAL INTERESTS HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN HARMED AND SOME REDRESS FOR THE MATERIAL AND MORAL INJURY SHE SUFFERED IS WARRANTED [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; damages; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2107
92nd session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 10
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM THAT HE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A FIXED-TERM STAFF MEMBER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE COMPLAINANT WAS RECRUITED AS A SHORT-TERM STAFF MEMBER, WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A COMPETITION PROCESS; HE ACCEPTED SEVERAL CONTRACT RENEWALS. IT WAS WITHIN THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL TO DECIDE DURING THE YEARS THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS WITH THE ORGANIZATION WHETHER TO RENEW EACH SHORT-TERM CONTRACT OR OFFER HIM A FIXED-TERM CONTRACT. THERE IS NO BASIS ON WHICH THE COMPLAINANT CAN CLAIM TO BE TREATED RETROACTIVELY AS IF HE HAD A FIXED-TERM CONTRACT. HE WAS AT ALL TIMES A SHORT-TERM STAFF MEMBER."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; claim; competition; complainant; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; fixed-term; international civil servant; non-retroactivity; participation; refusal; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2092
92nd session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 7
Extract:
"ONE OF THE TESTS WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A POST HAS TRULY BEEN ABOLISHED IS TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THE 'ABOLITION' HAS RESULTED IN A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF STAFF IN THE AFFECTED DEPARTMENT. (SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, JUDGMENT 139 [...].) IF IT HAS NOT, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT ALL THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IS A REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS AMONG EXISTING POSTS [...] AND NOT THE ABOLITION OF ONE OR MORE POSTS".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 139
Keywords:
abolition of post; case law; complaint allowed in part; consequence; criteria; definition; iloat; judicial review; post; reorganisation; staff reduction;
Judgment 2090
92nd session, 2002
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 6 AND 7
Extract:
BECAUSE OF RESTRUCTURING THE COMPLAINANT'S POST WAS ABOLISHED AND HIS APPOINTMENT WAS TERMINATED. "THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NOTHING UNLAWFUL ABOUT RESTRUCTURING PER SE AND IT WILL ALWAYS MEAN REGROUPING DUTIES AND SACRIFICING POSTS. BUT IN CARRYING OUT SUCH AN EXERCISE, AN ORGANISATION HAS A DUTY TO OBSERVE THE RIGHTS AND SAFEGUARDS OF ITS STAFF [...] THE [ORGANISATION]'S FIRST DUTY IN ADDRESSING THE CONSEQUENCES OF [THE COMPLAINANT'S] REDUNDANCY WAS TO OFFER HIM A TRANSFER TO ANOTHER SUITABLE POST. ONLY IF THAT PROVED IMPOSSIBLE SHOULD IT [PAY HIM THE INDEMNITY PAYABLE IN THE EVENT OF REDUNDANCY]. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE [ORGANISATION] DID ITS UTMOST TO FIND HIM A POST WHICH MATCHED HIS SKILLS AND LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY."
Keywords:
abolition of post; contract; discontinuance; post held by complainant; reorganisation;
Judgment 2080
92nd session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 14 AND 15
Extract:
"THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, IN EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL INTERESTS OF THE ORGANISATION, DECIDED THAT THE [COMPLAINANT'S] POST [...] SHOULD BE REDEFINED AND THAT [HIS] CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE RENEWED. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTS THAT THE ORGANISATION WAS ENTITLED TO ADAPT TO CHANGES AND TO MODIFY THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE GIVEN POST IN VIEW OF THE ORGANISATION'S FUTURE NEEDS."
Keywords:
amendment; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; non-renewal; organisation; organisation's interest; post description; post held by complainant; reorganisation; right;
Judgment 2074
91st session, 2001
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT APPLIED FOR A POST BUT WAS NOT SELECTED. "THE COMPLAINANT CLAIMS THE RIGHT OF PREFERENCE WHICH IS ACCORDED, WHEN CANDIDATES ARE EQUALLY COMPETENT, TO INTERNAL APPLICANTS [...] IN VIEW OF ITS OBJECTIVE, WHICH IS TO SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE EMPLOYEES FOR AN ORGANISATION, EQUALITY OF COMPETENCE APPLIES TO ALL THE ABILITIES REQUIRED OF AN EMPLOYEE, BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL. THE SECRETARY-GENERAL DID NOT OVERSTEP HIS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY BY CONCLUDING THAT THE OVERALL APTITUDE OF THE CANDIDATES WAS NOT EQUAL. THE PLEA MUST THEREFORE FAIL."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; condition; discretion; executive head; internal candidate; no cause of action; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; refusal; right; same;
Judgment 2072
91st session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 6
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT BENEFITED FROM A VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PROGRAMME THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAD HAD TO IMPLEMENT BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES. HE IS CHALLENGING THE REFUSAL TO CONSIDER HIS REQUEST FOR RE-EMPLOYMENT. "THE ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE TAKEN TO TASK FOR NOT CONSIDERING HIM FOR [VACANT] POSTS FOR WHICH HE HAD NOT APPLIED, OR FOR NOT OFFERING HIM ANOTHER [POST] WHILE IT WAS STILL IN FINANCIAL STRAITS."
Keywords:
agreed termination; budgetary reasons; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; failure to answer claim; participation; post; refusal; reinstatement; request; separation from service; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2060
91st session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 7 (A)
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT THE DECISION NOT TO SHORTLIST HIM WAS NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. BUT THE PLEA CANNOT SUCCEED. PRECEDENT HAS IT THAT WHEN AN ORGANISATION INFORMS CANDIDATES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL, IT MUST TAKE CARE NOT TO HARM THEIR PROSPECTS. MOREOVER, IN ANNOUNCING THE RESULTS OF A COMPETITION AND, MORE GENERALLY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SEVERAL CANDIDATES, AS HERE, THE REASONS FOR THE CHOICE NEED NOT BE GIVEN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DECISION. IT IS ENOUGH FOR THE REASONS TO BE GIVEN IN SOME LATER PROCEDURE (SEE JUDGMENTS 1990 AND 2035 AND THE OTHERS CITED THEREIN)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2035
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competition; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; refusal; respect for dignity;
CONSIDERATION 4
Extract:
"CANDIDATES WHO APPLY FOR A POST TO BE FILLED BY COMPETITION, WHATEVER THEIR HOPES OF SUCCESS MAY BE, ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED IN GOOD FAITH AND IN KEEPING WITH THE BASIC RULES OF FAIR COMPETITION. AN ORGANISATION MUST BE CAREFUL TO ABIDE BY THE RULES ON SELECTION AND WHEN THE PROCESS PROVES FLAWED, THE TRIBUNAL WILL QUASH ANY RESULTING APPOINTMENT, ALBEIT ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORGANISATION MUST 'SHIELD' THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE FROM ANY INJURY (SEE FOR EXAMPLE JUDGMENTS 1990 AND 2020 AND THE OTHERS CITED THEREIN)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 2054
91st session, 2001
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 10
Extract:
"THE TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COMPLAINANT THAT AS A DISABLED FORMER STAFF MEMBER HE IS ENTITLED TO A RIGHT TO REASSIGNMENT. THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR CONFERRING ON HIM A PREFERENTIAL STATUS. AS WITH ANY JOB APPLICANT, HE HAS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES AND APPLY FOR ANY DESIRED VACANT POST. TO RULE OTHERWISE WOULD, IN EFFECT, INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICABLE RULES TO UNDULY FAVOUR DISABLED FORMER STAFF MEMBERS. AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN JUDGMENT 637 [...] THE STAFF (MUCH LESS FORMER EMPLOYEES) 'MAY NOT DEMAND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES GOVERNING THEIR EMPLOYMENT'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 637
Keywords:
amendment; candidate; competition; handicapped person; priority; reassignment; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 2053
91st session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT WAS ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS. THERE BEING NO SUITABLE POST AT THE END OF THIS PERIOD, THIS LEAVE WAS EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS. "WHAT THE COMPLAINANT ASKED FOR [AT THE DATE OF HER REINTEGRATION] WAS THE RECALCULATION OF HER RECKONABLE EXPERIENCE AND HER GRADE; IN OTHER WORDS SHE WAS SEEKING PROMOTION AS A RESULT OF EXPERIENCE GAINED WHILE ON UNPAID LEAVE. PROMOTION IS CAREFULLY REGULATED UNDER ARTICLE 49 [OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS]. THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES FOR SIX DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROMOTION, BUT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PROMOTION FOR HAVING GAINED ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE WHILE ON LEAVE. NOR IS THERE PROVISION FOR ANY RECALCULATION OF THE CALCULATION MADE ON RECRUITMENT. THIS CLAIM FAILS."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 49 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; reinstatement; special leave; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2051
91st session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT HAD APPLIED FOR ANOTHER POST WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION. WHILE HE WAS ON LEAVE IN ORDER TO PREPARE HIS DAUGHTER'S WEDDING, HE WAS INVITED BY TELEPHONE TO ATTEND AN INTERVIEW WITHIN TWO DAYS. THE COMPLAINANT HAVING STATED HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE INTERVIEW IN THAT TIMEFRAME, HIS NAME WAS DELETED FROM THE LIST OF CANDIDATES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE. "THE FAILURE TO GIVE REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE COMPLAINANT TO ATTEND AN INTERVIEW BY REFUSING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPLAINANT AT THE TIME, FOLLOWED BY THE ELIMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT FROM CONSIDERATION WHEN HE COULD NOT ATTEND, CONSTITUTES [A] FLAW IN THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE SELECTION FOR THIS POST."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; flaw; notice; post; refusal; selection board;
Judgment 2040
90th session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 5
Extract:
"AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN MANY JUDGMENTS, A DECISION BY AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT IS A DISCRETIONARY ONE AND AS SUCH IS SUBJECT TO ONLY LIMITED REVIEW. IT MAY BE QUASHED ONLY IF IT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT AUTHORITY, OR IN BREACH OF A RULE OF FORM OR OF PROCEDURE, OR IF IT RESTED ON AN ERROR OF FACT OR OF LAW, OR IF SOME ESSENTIAL FACT WAS OVERLOOKED, OR IF THERE WAS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, OR IF CLEARLY MISTAKEN CONCLUSIONS WERE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REVIEW WITH SPECIAL CAUTION IN SUCH CASES AND WILL NOT REPLACE THE ORGANISATION'S ASSESSMENT OF THE CANDIDATES WITH ITS OWN (SEE JUDGMENT 1497, IN RE FLORES)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2037
90th session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 3
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANTS CHALLENGE THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER. THE APPEALS COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPEALS HAD NOT BEEN FILED IN TIME. BUT THE COMPLAINANTS ARGUE THAT THE CHALLENGED APPOINTMENT WAS NOT DEFINITIVE UNTIL THE OFFER HAD BEEN SIGNED AND THE CONDITIONS FOR APPOINTMENT SATISFIED. "WHEN WHAT IS CHALLENGED IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN AN ORGANISATION AND A FUTURE EMPLOYEE, THE ACT WHICH MAY BE IMPUGNED IS THE CONTRACT AS COMMUNICATED BY THE ORGANISATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OPEN TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO APPEAL INTERNALLY SUCH AS A MEDICAL EXAMINATION STILL TO BE UNDERGONE [...] LEGAL CERTAINTY REQUIRES COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANISATION TO BE RELIABLE SO THAT ALL CONCERNED KNOW WHEN THE TIME LIMIT FOR AN APPEAL STARTS TO RUN. THIS IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT WHEN THE ORGANISATION IS NOT BOUND TO REVEAL THE EXACT CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT. IN THIS INSTANCE, [...] SINCE THE ORGANISATION HAD ALREADY NOTIFIED ITS DECISION AND ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE FUTURE [STAFF MEMBER] ON HIS TERMS OF APPOINTMENT, THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT AND THE PRIOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION APPEARED TO BE MERE FORMALITIES. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHEER PEDANTRY TO INSIST THAT THEY BE COMPLETED AND THE STAFF SO INFORMED BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE [STAFF MEMBER] WAS ANNOUNCED." THE TIME LIMIT FOR AN APPEAL HAD THEREFORE STARTED TO RUN AS SOON AS THE PERSONNEL HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE CONTESTED APPOINTMENT.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2034
90th session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
"THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT REINSTATEMENT IS SUBJECT TO TWO CONDITIONS. FIRST, THERE MUST BE A VACANT POST AND, SECONDLY, THE STAFF MEMBER MUST BE QUALIFIED FOR IT. [MOREOVER], REINSTATEMENT IS INADVISABLE WHEN AN EMPLOYER HAS VALID REASONS FOR LOSING CONFIDENCE IN AN EMPLOYEE. AND [THE ORGANISATION] HAS. IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED A CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH [HIS SUPERVISOR] WITHOUT THE LATTER'S KNOWLEDGE. EVEN IF HE DID SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT HIS CASE, SUCH BEHAVIOUR IS UNACCEPTABLE AND FULLY WARRANTS THE [ORGANISATION]'S LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. THAT BEING SO, REINSTATEMENT IS NOT ADVISABLE."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; conduct; evidence; qualifications; recording; reinstatement; vacancy;
Judgment 2027
90th session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 12
Extract:
"A QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE IN DUTIES RATHER THAN A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR NATURE OR INTRINSIC IMPORTANCE IS NOT A DECISIVE CRITERION ON WHICH TO BASE A DIFFERENCE IN GRADE BETWEEN TWO OFFICIALS WHO PERFORM EXACTLY THE SAME DUTIES."
Keywords:
complaint allowed in part; criteria; difference; grade; international civil servant; post; post classification; post description; same;
< 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 | next >
|
