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

Limits (550,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Limits
Total judgments found: 167

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



  • Judgment 2690


    104th Session, 2008
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant's argument regarding the legality of the Directive on the ground that the Preparatory Commission has established, almost from the very beginning of its existence, the non-career character of its functions. Its very nature of being a 'preparatory commission' for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization makes it obvious that the decision thus adopted was in perfect coherence with its own mandate, which is not of a permanent nature."

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; contract; decision; exception; fixed-term; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; professional category; security of tenure; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 2646


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal recalls that the reason for probation is to enable an organisation to assess the probationer's suitability for a position. For this reason, it has recognised that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation's exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters including the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements."

    Keywords:

    decision; definition; discretion; extension of contract; judicial review; limits; organisation; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; purpose; qualifications;



  • Judgment 2581


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "[C]onsistent precedent has it that 'decisions in respect of post classification are at the Administration's discretion and can only be set aside on limited grounds. It does not behove the Tribunal to substitute its own post assessment for that of the Organization' (see for example Judgment 1874)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1874

    Keywords:

    case law; decision; discretion; grounds; iloat; judicial review; limits; organisation; post classification;



  • 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 2513


    100th Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377

    Keywords:

    age limit; bias; case law; complaint allowed; decision; decision quashed; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2510


    100th Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "An international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff (see Judgments 269 and 1614). As was pointed out in Judgment 1131, the Tribunal may not supplant an organisation's view with respect to these matters, and decisions on them are discretionary and subject to limited review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1131, 1614

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; creation of post; decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post; reassignment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 2494


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainants were issued a reprimand on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and for abandoning their post in the course of their shift. "Considering Eurocontrol's special missions relating to the safety of air navigation, the right to strike - the lawfulness of which is not disputed - must not lead to sudden stoppages of activity such as occur when shift work is abandoned. The complainants do not deny the charges made against them in this respect. The Tribunal therefore considers that, while the first ground mentioned by the Agency - namely, participation in unlawful strike action - could not legally justify the contested disciplinary measure, this second ground did justify a penalty."

    Keywords:

    abandonment of post; acceptance; censure; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary measure; enforcement; grounds; limits; right to strike; strike;



  • 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 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; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;



  • 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 beyond retirement age; grounds; lack of evidence; limits; refusal; retirement; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • 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; 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; serious misconduct; suspensive action;



  • Judgment 2361


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

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal, in keeping with consistent precedent, may not replace the findings of medical boards with its own. But it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and whether the reports used as a basis for administrative decisions show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence (see Judgment 1284, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284

    Keywords:

    case law; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; decision; disregard of essential fact; iloat; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedure before the tribunal; report; vested competence;



  • 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 2315


    96th Session, 2004
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "A change in the nature of the discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant future rights by the extension or renewal of a contract cannot be said to effect a change in an existing legal interest, much less in an existing legal right or existing legal status. Accordingly, the seven year policy embodied in [the] directive [...] is not retroactive even if the seven year period is computed from a time prior to the proclamation of that policy."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; appointment; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; contract; date; decision; discretion; exception; extension of contract; general principle; limits; non-local status; official; organisation; period; professional category; publication; reckoning; right; staff member's interest; status of complainant; terms of appointment; written rule;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Much of the complainant's argument is directed to the proposition that the Commission cannot secure services of the standard specified in [Staff] Regulation 4.2 if it cannot retain those services beyond seven years, particularly as it has to compete for staff with other international organisations. That proposition is not self-evidently correct. Nor is it established by pointing, as the complainant does in his submissions, to international organisations which have a similar policy and which, according to the complainant, have or may have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitable staff. Moreover, [...] exceptions [are allowed] in the case of a need to retain 'essential expertise or memory in the Secretariat' ensures that, to that extent, its staffing needs can be satisfied."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: CTBTO PrepCom's Staff Regulation 4.2

    Keywords:

    appointment; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; enforcement; exception; general principle; lack of evidence; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; qualifications; safeguard; same; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Although the embodiment of the seven year policy in [the] directive may properly be viewed as the prescribing of a term or condition upon which fixed-term contracts may be granted, it does not itself operate as the imposition of that term or condition. To be effective, a term or condition of the kind now in question must be incorporated in the contract, even if only by reference: a reference to the Staff Regulations and Rules is not sufficient because they do not incorporate the [...] directive in question. By implementing the seven year policy in the way that he purported to do in the present case, the Executive Secretary was attempting to enforce a term or condition that was not incorporated in the contract between the complainant and the Preparatory Commission."

    Keywords:

    appointment; career; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; contract; effect; enforcement; exception; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2306


    96th Session, 2004
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 and 11

    Extract:

    "As a general rule, damages for breach of contract, including wrongful termination of a contract of employment, are confined to the amount necessary to put the injured party in the position he or she would have enjoyed if the contract had been performed. Thus, ordinarily, an employee is entitled, in the case of wrongful termination, to salary and entitlements only up to the date on which the contract would normally have expired. Of course, in some circumstances, material damage may extend beyond the salary and allowances that would otherwise have been paid during the course of the contract. Thus, for example, an employee may be entitled to additional compensation if it is shown that he or she lost a valuable chance of having the contract renewed or extended."

    Keywords:

    allowance; amount; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; evidence; exception; extension of contract; general principle; injury; limits; material damages; material injury; misuse of authority; official; reconstruction of career; right; salary; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2296


    96th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "There can be no doubt of the right of an international organisation to set obligatory rules for the conduct of its staff governing various aspects of their relations with their employer, and that this right includes the right to set reasonable limitation periods during which claims against the employer must be asserted. However, such rules must be published or otherwise made known to all the members of staff concerned in a way which can leave absolutely no doubt as to the nature and reach of the rule, and no doubt that it has been brought to the attention of all those to whom it applies. Even if the [Organization] had succeeded in showing that the tax reimbursement instructions had been given to the staff individually, which it has signally failed to do, it would also have to have shown that all others in like case had been similarly advised. Rules limiting the right to exercise a fundamental condition of employment applicable to all international civil servants are only permissible if they, too, are applicable to all."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; enforcement; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review; limits; official; organisation's duties; payment; provision; publication; purport; reasonable time; refund; right; tax; terms of appointment; time limit;



  • Judgment 2295


    96th Session, 2004
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before the Joint Appeals Board which, as the primary trier of fact has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason the Board is entitled to considerable deference. [...] Where a body such as the Board has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation thereof, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."

    Keywords:

    disregard of essential fact; evidence; internal appeals body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; mistake of fact; report; testimony;



  • Judgment 2272


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    A rule, "approved by the Administrative Council, [cannot] be called into question by the President. It is true that, when deciding to promote or not to promote a permanent employee, the President enjoys discretionary authority, subject to the Tribunal┐s limited power of review. Within the bounds of this limited power of review, however, the Tribunal considers whether decisions referred to it are not flawed by abuse of authority or error of law. In the present case, the complainant argues rightly that by refusing to apply to his case a rule which had been approved by the Administrative Council, despite the fact that he met the necessary requirements, the President committed an error of law and abused his authority."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; interpretation; judicial review; limits; misuse of authority; promotion; refusal; repeal; written rule;



  • Judgment 2232


    95th Session, 2003
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. "In accordance with the established case law of all international administrative tribunals, the Tribunal reaffirms that the independence of international civil servants is an essential guarantee, not only for the civil servants themselves, but also for the proper functioning of international organisations. In the case of heads of organisations, that independence is protected, inter alia, by the fact that they are appointed for a limited term of office. To concede that the authority in which the power of appointment is vested - in this case the Conference of the States parties of the Organisation - may terminate that appointment in its unfettered discretion, would constitute an unacceptable violation of the principles on which international organisations' activities are founded [...], by rendering officials vulnerable to pressures and to political change. The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; appointment; breach; case law; complaint allowed; condition; discretion; exception; executive body; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; hidden disciplinary measure; iloat; independence; internal appeals body; limits; member state; official; organisation; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2228


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Staff Committee, which is a statutory body of the organisation, made the facilities derived from its access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system available to the Staff Union. Its access to the system was withdrawn. "The organisation [submits that] the facilities offered to the Staff Committee cannot be made available to the Staff Union without creating confusion with regard to the attribution of roles and responsibilities, even if those in charge of one of these bodies are also, or may be, in charge of the other. This does not mean to say that the unions should not be provided with certain facilities by the organisations. On the contrary, their freedom of expression should not be hampered, as indicated by the Tribunal in Judgment 1547, [...] and unions must clearly be provided with sufficient facilities, within the framework of negotiated agreements or, if need be, administrative regulations, to enable them to carry on their activities. It is legitimate, however, for the organisation to ensure that the facilities made available to a body officially representing the staff as a whole are not misused for the benefit of a union, or any other body having its own assets and representing only part of the staff."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1547

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; case law; collective bargaining; facilities; freedom of speech; grounds; liability; limits; organisation's duties; purpose; refusal; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; staff union agreement; written rule;

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


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top