|
|
 |
|
|
Decision-maker (544,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision-maker
Total judgments found: 55
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of th[e] letter [in question] makes it plain that it was not intended to convey a decision taken by the Executive Director but by the Director-General himself, in a procedure commonly used in such cases at the ILO and, mutatis mutandis, in many other international organisations. The matter of whether the power to sign this letter had been granted is therefore irrelevant and the plea must be dismissed in accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law in this matter (see, for example, Judgments 4291, considerations 17 and 18, 3352, consideration 7, and 2836, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 3352, 4291
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegation of power; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4139
128th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although neither these provisions nor the other rules governing the staff of the Global Fund clearly specify the authority competent to decide, prior to such a termination of contract, to abolish a post with the likelihood that a termination will ensue, it is clear that this authority can only be, in accordance with the case law cited above, the Executive Director himself, by virtue of the general authority conferred upon him as the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
decision-maker; executive head;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Global Fund maintains [...] that the Chief of the Executive Director’s management team was involved in dealing with the complainant’s situation. However, this would not be enough to establish that the decision in question was taken by the Executive Director himself.
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; decision-maker; judicial review; reassignment; report;
Judgment 3177
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to refuse to promote him to grade P-5.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"The complainant alleges first that the Director-General did not properly delegate the authority to make the final decision at issue. The impugned decision was signed by the Director ad interim of HRM and not the Director-General.
This is not a question of delegation of authority. Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the authorised decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision. In Judgment 2028, relied on by the complainant, the decision was flawed because no evidence was adduced that the person with authority had actually made the decision or properly delegated it (see Judgment 2028, under 8(3)). It is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself."
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; general principle;
Judgment 3161
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him which, in his view, violates his status as an employee.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"[T]he task of the Internal Appeals Committee is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made. While provisions establishing an internal appeal committee or board may limit its functions, this is not the case in relation to this Internal Appeals Committee established under the Service Regulations applying to the permanent employees of the EPO.
Of course the authority of the Internal Appeals Committee is limited to making recommendations and, to that extent, the ultimate decision-making power remains, in a case such as the present, with the President of the Office. However, the President is obliged to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and not avoid addressing the reasoning of its members by wrongly indicating, as in this case, that the majority of the Committee’s members had exceeded the limits of their role in determining the appeal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; case law; decision; decision-maker; due process; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 2779
106th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has found, even though he was not competent to make the representation, Mr [...] made a promise to the complainant that his appointment would be extended beyond statutory retirement age. Mr R. also fostered the complainant's false belief that the promise would be honoured. Despite the complainant's numerous requests over a period of approximately 18 months clearly explaining his belief that a promise had been made, the Secretary-General chose to ignore the opportunities to correct the complainant's misapprehensions and permitted him to act on his mistaken belief. Lastly, the Secretary-General failed to make a decision on the complainant's request for an extension in a timely fashion. This conduct constitutes a breach of the duty to respect the complainant's dignity. At the very least, the Secretary-General should have notified the complainant that the Union did not accept the obligation when the matter was first brought to his attention. This conduct has caused the complainant moral injury for which he must be compensated in the form of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; decision-maker; duration of appointment; extension beyond retirement age; good faith; injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; promise; respect for dignity; retirement; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has on numerous occasions ruled on the issue of whether an international organisation is bound to comply with general provisions that would infringe the rights of its staff members. The fact that an international organisation belongs to the common system does not enable it to decline or limit its own responsibility towards the members of its staff or lessen the degree of judicial protection it owes them. Any organisation that introduces elements of the common system into its own rules has a duty to ensure that the texts it thereby imports are lawful (on this issue, see Judgment 1265, which refers to Judgments 382 and 825; for more recent examples concerning the duties of the FAO, see Judgments 1713 and 2303). Whilst the Tribunal fully appreciates the difficulties - emphasised by the defendant - that international organisations are liable to face in departing from the salary scales adopted on the basis of ICSC recommendations, it is nevertheless bound to ensure that international law is observed in the relations between the said organisations and their staff, regardless of the external authority from which the decisions taken emanate. Indeed, the case of an organisation having to revise salary scales resulting from recommendations or decisions affecting the common system, whether or not pursuant to a ruling by the competent tribunal, is not without precedent."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1265, 1713, 2303
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; criteria; decision-maker; icsc decision; liability; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director-General. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. Being subject to only limited review, it may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 2114
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;
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 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1969
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal will quash [...] a decision [of a discretionary nature] only if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1834
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant [pleads] that the decision to terminate [her appointment] was not 'initiated' by the Director-General, as Staff Rule 110.04 required. [I]n the context of the Staff Rule the word 'initiated' does not mean that the Director-General himself must be the first person in the administration to take any action at all; it simply requires that the action, when taken, be on the Director-General's behalf and with his prior approval."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF RULE 110.04
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Insofar as the seven Member States continued to be jointly responsible for the Staff Insurance Scheme (SIS) "the delegation of authority was quite proper. What is more, it was quite understandable since the seven countries still owed the serving and the retired staff joint responsibility for safeguarding their entitlements. That is how the three departing countries were associated in the decisions of the future of the SIS. Besides, the decisions were unanimous, and there can have been no procedural flaw in the mere attendance - which was highly desirable anyway - of representatives of the former Member States as well." The plea of incompetence must, therefore, be rejected.
Keywords:
competence; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive body; member state; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1566
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Organisation points out that the letter from the Director of staff policy "was sent neither by the President nor on his behalf. The complainant demurs, and he is right to do so. It was to the President by name that he had written [...]; that letter was what he got in reply and he was entitled to assume that it had been sent with the President's authority. Indeed the position in law would be the same even if the reply had never been written and if he were basing his complaint on implied rejection of the claims in his letter".
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; good faith; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1550
81st Session, 1996
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"If the complainant felt that the representative's order was ultra vires the proper course was for him, not just to carry on regardless, but to raise the issue with the representative and, if necessary, refer it through the representative to Headquarters for a ruling. By failing to obey an explicit and unambiguous order from his supervisor he was in breach of his duty under the Staff Regulations, which declare staff to be subject to the authority of the Director. In this instance that authority had been delegated to the representative."
Keywords:
conduct; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; due process; insubordination; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
