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

Executive head (549,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Executive head
Total judgments found: 204

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >



  • 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. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probation; reply; work appraisal;

    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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision; decision quashed; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension; flaw; iloat; international civil servant; lack of evidence; moral injury; organisation's duties; probation; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination;



  • Judgment 2549


    101st Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10, 11 and 13

    Extract:

    The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
    "The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
    After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715

    Keywords:

    analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; complaint allowed; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; international civil servant; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same; same-sex marriage; social benefit; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2514


    100th Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has consistently held that it is for the competent body and, in the last resort, the executive head of the relevant organisation to grade staff members following an exercise involving the making of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment if it is shown, for example, that the competent body acted on some wrong principle or overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see Judgments 594, 1067, 1152, 1281 and 1495)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 594, 1067, 1152, 1281, 1495

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post description;



  • Judgment 2496


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; international civil servant; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;



  • Judgment 2493


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; collective rights; competence; complaint allowed; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;



  • Judgment 2490


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[T]he executive head of an organisation has discretionary authority not only to promote someone from one grade to another but also to say what place he shall hold in his new grade (see Judgment 313, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 313

    Keywords:

    discretion; executive head; grade; international civil servant; organisation; promotion;



  • Judgment 2473


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
    Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; complaint; complaint allowed; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2467


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2427


    99th Session, 2005
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
    Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246

    Keywords:

    case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probation; procedural flaw; termination; tribunal; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2391


    98th Session, 2005
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339

    Keywords:

    breach; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;



  • Judgment 2389


    98th Session, 2005
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The home country "is not necessarily that of the staff member's nationality. It could be the country with which he has the closest connection outside the country in which he is employed (see Judgment 1985, under 9), for instance the home country of his wife or of children whom he may have adopted or taken in but who he believes should keep up their connections with their native environment. Thus, according to Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c, the Director General, in exceptional circumstances, may authorise a staff member to take home leave in a country other than the country of his nationality, provided that the latter can show that he maintained his normal residence in that other country for a prolonged period preceding his appointment, that he continues to have close family or personal ties in that country and that his taking home leave there would not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulation 5.3 and Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1985

    Keywords:

    adoption; appointment; burden of proof; condition; definition; dependent child; difference; duty station; exception; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official travel; period; place of origin; residence; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he purpose of home leave is to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections. Regulation 5.3, which denies home leave to staff members whose home country is the country of their official duty station or who continue to reside in their home country, is therefore self-explanatory. Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2, reflects the same reasoning, insofar as it provides that a staff member may lose entitlement to home leave if, following a change in his residential status, he is, in the opinion of the Director General, deemed to be a permanent resident of any country other than that of his nationality, provided that the Director General considers that the continuation of such entitlement would be contrary to the purposes for which the benefit was created."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulations 4.5, paragraph 2, and 5.3

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; condition; consequence; difference; duty station; executive head; family relationship; home leave; international civil servant; nationality; period; place of origin; purpose; refusal; residence; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2377


    98th Session, 2005
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment beyond the statutory retirement age. Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05 "makes it clear that the decision whether or not to grant 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, none of which has been established by the complainant. The fact that such extensions may have been granted to a number of other staff members is simply irrelevant in the circumstances. No one has a right to be retained beyond the applicable normal retirement age, which in the complainant's case was 60."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: AIEA Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05

    Keywords:

    age limit; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; contract; difference; discretion; equal treatment; executive head; extension; grounds; lack of evidence; limits; refusal; retirement; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2373


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The decision to redefine the functions of a post is the prerogative of the Director-General, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; definition; discretion; executive head; post; post description; qualifications; recommendation;



  • Judgment 2370


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;



  • 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:

    breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; international civil servant; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; serious misconduct; suspensive action;



  • Judgment 2357


    97th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgments 1835, 1836 and 1837 that the application of Article 71(2)[regarding the conditions of award of an education allowance] 'is at the discretion of the President of the Office'. It is not strictly accurate to describe a decision as to the application of Article 71(2) as discretionary. The question whether a particular school or university corresponds to a 'child's educational stage' is essentially a question of fact, albeit one that may, in some circumstances, permit of a value judgment. However, because of the nature of that question, a decision under Article 71(2) is subject to limited review on the same grounds as a discretionary decision properly so called. Thus, it will be reviewed only for procedural error, mistake of fact or law, the drawing of a clearly mistaken conclusion or misuse of authority. In particular, this Tribunal will not substitute its view of the facts for that reached by the President."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 71(2) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1835, 1836, 1837

    Keywords:

    allowance; case law; condition; decision; discretion; education expenses; enforcement; executive head; grounds; interpretation; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; provision; same; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2356


    97th Session, 2004
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant claims damages for the injury resulting from the inclusion in her personnel file of a memorandum bearing negative remarks about her performance. "While there is no evidence whatsoever to support the complainant's claim that she was humiliated and that her future career prospects were adversely affected by this memorandum, the fact remains that the Appeals Committee found, and the Director-General accepted, that the document should be removed from her file. That necessarily implies an acceptance by the Organization that it had acted wrongly in putting it there in the first place. This entitles her to a nominal award of moral damages which the Tribunal evaluates at 500 euros."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; advisory opinion; breach; career; claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; executive head; general service category; grade; injury; internal appeals body; international civil servant; lack of evidence; moral damages; moral injury; personal file; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 2355


    97th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;



  • Judgment 2354


    97th Session, 2004
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 7

    Extract:

    The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; decision; due process; duty to inform; executive head; flaw; grade; grounds; independence; international civil servant; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; post held by complainant; provision; same; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination; written rule;



  • Judgment 2352


    97th Session, 2004
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant's post was abolished and his appointment terminated. "It is clear from the [applicable] provisions that [...] the Staff Committee had to be consulted before the decision was taken to terminate the complainant's appointment. The purpose of consulting an advisory body, prior to terminating an official's appointment, is to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head. The Tribunal takes the view that it is established, by the evidence [...], that the Staff Committee was indeed consulted regarding the suppression of the [complainant's] post [...]. However, it considers that the Committee was not formally consulted with regard to the intention to terminate the complainant's appointment. [...] As the impugned decision was taken in breach of the applicable rules, it must be held unlawful and the Tribunal need not rule on the complainant's other pleas."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; decision; due process; executive head; flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; post held by complainant; provision; purpose; recommendation; staff regulations and rules; termination; written rule;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 22.11.2019 ^ top