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

Organisation's interest (551,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Organisation's interest
Total judgments found: 203

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

  • Judgment 4261


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The fact that a managerial decision was taken in the interests of the service and under time pressure is not inherently incompatible with it also being an act of retaliation. Very often a managerial decision involves choices between courses of action. The adoption of a course of action because it is in the interests of the service, may also be intended, at least in part, as an act of retaliation.

    Keywords:

    organisation's interest; retaliation;



  • Judgment 4254


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal can but recall that what is in the interest of an organisation may be decided at the discretion of its executive head (see Judgments 2105, consideration 17, and 4084, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2105, 4084

    Keywords:

    organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 4220


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for an agreed separation.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [T]here is no element which leads the Tribunal to question this organizational evaluation of what is in the best interest of the Organization which is within the knowledge and the competence of the executive head (see, for example, Judgments 3858, consideration 12, and 2377, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3858

    Keywords:

    discretion; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 4216


    129th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part.

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, for example, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be suitably filled, and the opening of such a procedure does not therefore imply that a candidate will necessarily be appointed to that post (see, for example, Judgments 791, consideration 4, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, 3647, consideration 9, and 3920, consideration 18).
    According to the same case law, the decision not to fill a post for which a competition procedure is opened – like any decision to appoint an official in the opposite case that an appointment is made – is a matter for the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, in particular, aforementioned Judgments 791, consideration 4, or 1771, consideration 6). The Tribunal must, however, ascertain whether that decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1689, consideration 3, 2060, consideration 4, 2457, consideration 6, 3537, consideration 10, and 3652, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1689, 1771, 1982, 2060, 2075, 2457, 3537, 3647, 3652, 3920

    Keywords:

    competition cancelled; discretion; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 4089


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]t was open to the Director General to view the complainant’s conduct giving rise to and the subsequent conduct in relation to the judgment debt as falling short of the standards demanded of international civil servants. Accordingly, and subject to the various legal arguments of the complainant, it was open to the Director General to conclude it was not in the interests of the Agency to extend the complainant’s appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Keywords:

    age limit; conduct; discretion; extension; organisation's interest; retirement; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 4084


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that, contrary to Staff Regulation 4.3(a), her transfer was not in the best interest of WIPO and that no consideration was given to her interests. The Tribunal has consistently stated that what is in the interest of an organization should be left to the organization to decide (see Judgment 2105, under 17) and that greater caution must be shown before interfering with such decisions because the executive head must ordinarily be deemed to be the best judge of what the interests of the organization are (see Judgment 1050, under 4, and Judgment 3193, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1050, 2105, 3193

    Keywords:

    executive head; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 4081


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls its case law according to which “[t]here will indeed be misuse of authority where an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation’s best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve” (see Judgment 1129, consideration 8). Moreover, “misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it” (see Judgment 3939, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 3939

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; misuse of authority; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 3940


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the outsourcing of certain services, that is to say the use by an organisation of external contractors to perform tasks that it feels unable to assign to officials hired under its staff regulations, forms part of the general employment policy that an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests. The Tribunal is not competent to review the advisability or merits of the adoption of such a measure in a specific field of activity (see Judgments 3275, under 8, 3225, under 6, 3041, under 6, 2972, under 7, 2907, under 13, 2510, under 10, 2156, under 8, and 1131, under 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2156, 2510, 2907, 2972, 3041, 3225, 3275

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; organisation's interest; outsourcing;



  • Judgment 3939


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has already emphasised, it is in the interests of an international organisation to ensure that the trade unions or associations representing its staff operate in good conditions (see Judgment 496, under 17). Hence, in order to determine whether retaining an official in service beyond the age of retirement is in the organisation’s interests, it is necessary to take account of any staff representative work carried out by the person in question (see, with respect to a similar case, Judgment 3521, under 1 to 3 and 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3521

    Keywords:

    age limit; organisation's interest; retirement; staff representative; staff union;



  • Judgment 3920


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observed in Judgment 3647, consideration 9, that: “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognises that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be filled, and that she or he may, if need be, decide to hold a new competition on different terms (see, for example, Judgments 1223, under 31, 1771, under 4(e), 1982, under 5(a), and 2075, under 3). However, the condition relating to the interests of the organisation must actually be met, so that the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason. In this matter as in any other, arbitrary decision-making is unacceptable.”
    [...] In most of the rules of the international organizations which have accepted the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, competitions are a fundamental mechanism of the selection of international civil servants for positions within international organizations and their integrity must be protected. However, in the present case, the complainant had not been shortlisted because she did not have the requisite years of experience. Thus, she suffered no detriment as a result of the cancellation of the competition.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647

    Keywords:

    competition; competition cancelled; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 3874


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims that he has been deprived of his pension rights.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [I]t is not reasonable for the complainant to assert that financial aspects are “irrelevant factors” for deciding whether or not something is “in the interests of the Organization”. Clearly, financial responsibility is a core requirement of the proper functioning of an international organization.

    Keywords:

    organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 3858


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has accepted that the question of what is in the best interest of an organisation is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge and competence of the executive head (see Judgment 2377, consideration 5). The Tribunal’s jurisprudence, as discussed in that judgment, is that the Tribunal will normally defer to the view of the executive head and will only intervene if it is shown that the executive head acted without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if a decision was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts or if there was abuse of authority.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377

    Keywords:

    discretion; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 3827


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her the lump sum paid to servants whose application to resign is accepted.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It must be recalled that the Tribunal is not competent to rule on the merits of [the Organisation]’s choices in respect of its staff management, for they form part of the general employment policy that an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests (see Judgment 3225, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225

    Keywords:

    discretion; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 3521


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for a two-year prolongation of service beyond retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; extension; organisation's interest; retirement;



  • Judgment 3502


    120th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General's decision to partially adopt the Appeal Board's recommendations on his appeal against his temporary suspension.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    joinder; misconduct; organisation's interest; suspension;



  • Judgment 3488


    120th Session, 2015
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Administration’s decision to transfer him, asserting that his transfer was the result of harassment and retaliation.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; organisation's interest; transfer;



  • Judgment 3280


    116th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
    "[A]lthough it is debatable in principle, the general postponement of a promotion round cannot be ruled out completely when Eurocontrol’s financial situation requires it in exceptional circumstances. The explanations furnished by Eurocontrol, the verisimilitude of which the Tribunal does not doubt, show that such circumstances existed in the instant case."

    Keywords:

    condition; organisation's interest; promotion;



  • Judgment 3279


    116th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainants contest the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
    "The Tribunal notes that as the decision was justified and is to be considered a proper exercise of discretion, and as the suspension of promotion exercises was planned for only one year, it is unfortunate that some staff were negatively affected by the decision but recognises that Eurocontrol must decide based on the overall well-being of the Organisation as a whole and cannot base its decisions only on the specific and particular situations of individual staff members."

    Keywords:

    discretion; organisation's interest; promotion;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he essential purpose of the staff regulations of an international organisation is to promote that organisation’s interests while at the same time safeguarding the rights of its staff."

    Keywords:

    international civil servant; organisation's interest; purpose; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

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

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    acceptance; age limit; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension; organisation's interest; request by a party; retirement; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

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

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3193


    114th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "In a case where a complainant establishes that the disputed decision involved an abuse of power, the appropriate relief is often to set aside the decision. Indeed, such a decision should not stand in the face of the conclusion that it involved an abuse of power. [However], in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; misuse of authority; moral damages; moral injury; organisation's interest; post classification; reassignment; transfer;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;

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


 
Last updated: 28.02.2020 ^ top