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

Flaw (557, 558, 559,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Flaw
Total judgments found: 241

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >



  • Judgment 2715


    104th Session, 2008
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Secretary General of the Organization decided to follow the Appeals Board's recommendations and thus to award the complainant compensation. By a letter of 2 October 2006 he notified the complainant that he nevertheless intended to make payment of the compensation subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce the exercise of all means of appeal against the WCO. "[T]he Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the Secretary General's letter of 2 October 2006 contained an unlawful clause which should definitely be censured, in that its purpose was to make the actual payment of the sum in question subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce all means of appeals.
    An international organisation commits a serious breach of the general principles of law by violating, through such conduct, international civil servants' right of appeal, especially to the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; allowance; condition; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; payment; right of appeal; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2712


    104th Session, 2008
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Organization appointed a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement. "[I]t must be observed that the other applicants [...] were [...] eliminated improperly and that other potential candidates might have been dissuaded from applying because they did not meet the condition of having 15 years of experience as stipulated in the vacancy notice, though this was ultimately not applied to the successful candidate. Thus, the whole competition became a sham." The appointment of the successful candidate must therefore be set aside.

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; criteria; decision quashed; flaw; post; professional experience; refusal; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 2669


    104th Session, 2008
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Director-General's authority to extend a staff member's service beyond the retirement age is found in Staff Regulation 301.9.5. "This provision makes it clear that a decision to grant an extension of a staff member's contract is within the discretionary authority of the Director-General. It is well established in the case law that the Tribunal will only intervene in these circumstances if it can be shown that the executive head of the organisation acted without authority, breached a rule of form or procedure, or that the decision was based on a mistake of fact or law, or overlooked an essential fact, or that clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: FAO Staff Regulation 301.9.5

    Keywords:

    age limit; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; extension; flaw; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; refusal; retirement;



  • Judgment 2605


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal considers that informing a person in advance that an investigation into certain allegations will be undertaken is not a requisite element of due process. Although notification prior to the start of an investigation may well be the preferred course of action, in certain circumstances alerting an individual to the fact that an investigation is to be undertaken may well compromise the investigation. As well, it may be through a routine review or audit that irregularities are encountered. It is once irregularities have been identified that the individual must be informed of the allegations of irregularities with sufficient precision to enable him to respond adequately; he should then be given an opportunity to respond, in particular to defend himself against the allegations, and to make such further response as the circumstances require prior to any conclusions being reached."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to inform; flaw; inquiry; organisation's duties; procedure; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3 (b)

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed at the end of the extension of her probationary period. She criticises the way her probation was conducted. The Tribunal considers that her criticism "is not entirely unfounded. At the time she took up her duties, her predecessor had been retired for five months and staff changes continued among officials who should have been involved in training and supervising her and who were hence responsible for assessing her performance. It is clear, therefore, that during her probationary period the complainant did not enjoy the best assistance and supervision.
    However regrettable these circumstances may be, they are not such as to invalidate either the decision to extend the complainant's probationary period beyond the end of 2002 or the decision to dismiss her at the end of the extension."

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; extension; flaw; organisation's duties; probation; retirement; supervisor; termination; training; vacancy; 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. "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 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
    Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."

    Keywords:

    candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; consequence; consultation; decision; decision quashed; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure; provision; selection board; written rule;



  • 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 2418


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The Appeals Committee considered that the promotion procedure carried out under the vacancy notice was legally flawed and it unanimously recommended that the three contested appointments be revoked and that the application procedure be re-run. The President of the Office refused to re-run the procedure as recommended by the Committee. The Tribunal, having found that the challenged decision was irregular, in breach of the principle of equal treatment and that the Administration's attitude showed a distinct lack of even-handedness, awards punitive damages in the sum of 2,500 euros to each complainant.

    Keywords:

    bias; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; equal treatment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; punitive damages;



  • Judgment 2394


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated. "[I]t emerges quite clearly from the file that the irregularities committed [...], the careless way the Organization advertised the complainant's post before he had even had a chance to comment on the termination of his contract, and the way it admitted the unlawfulness of the termination notified on 29 August 2001 [...] only in a decision of 28 June 2003 notified to the complainant on 17 July 2003, severely harmed the complainant's legitimate interests and impaired his dignity." He is therefore entitled to a compensation for the financial and moral damage he incurred.

    Keywords:

    acceptance; allowance; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date of notification; delay; flaw; injury; material injury; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; post; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; staff member's interest; termination;



  • 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;



  • Judgment 2315


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

    Consideration 32

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal may, when setting aside a flawed decision not to renew a contract, order renewal for an appropriate term, as was done in Judgments 1298 and 1633. But it does so only if that is clearly the fair course to take. That was the situation in Judgment 1633 where, in practical terms, the question for decision was not whether a contract should be renewed but whether it should be renewed for two or for five years."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1298, 1633

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; contract; decision; decision quashed; equity; flaw; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; non-renewal of contract; period; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2300


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

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant contends that the [challenged] decision is unlawful because it is based on an opinion by the Joint Appeals Committee signed by its Chairman alone, whereas it is common practice in Interpol, as in other international organisations, for this type of document to be signed by all members of the Committee. The Organization rightly points out that, in accordance with Article 152(3) of the Staff Rules, the Chairman of the relevant Joint Committee shall sign the consultative opinion. This provision cannot be challenged on the grounds that different practices prevail in other organisations."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 152(3) of Interpol's Staff Rules

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; decision; difference; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeals body; organisation; practice; provision; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2226


    95th Session, 2003
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    The complainant was reassigned from one day to the next. "Considering the complainant's length of service (12 years with the organization), the absence of any report of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance on his part, or any indication of urgency that might have justified a sudden, unheralded management decision to reassign him, the action of the Director-General was flawed by procedural irregularity."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; executive body; executive head; flaw; lack of evidence; misconduct; notice; organisation; period; procedural flaw; reassignment; report; satisfactory service; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • 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:

    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 2151


    93rd Session, 2002
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not undertake a job classification exercise, which lies solely within the authority of the defendant. However, the succession of errors made in this case, as acknowledged both by the Classification Review Committee and the [Organisation] itself, leaves room for serious doubts concerning the objectivity of the rationale for the classifications that are being challenged. [...] The Tribunal finds that the complainants must not suffer any injury from the Organisation's impossibility to reconstitute the elements on which the classification was made. [The Tribunal] has to assess the effects of the errors committed and of the [Organisation]'s inability to indicate precisely the methods followed by the consultant in his recommendation to maintain the complainants' posts at [the same] grade."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complainant; complaint allowed; consequence; flaw; grade; injury; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; post; post classification; post held by complainant;



  • Judgment 2051


    91st Session, 2001
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant had applied for another post within the organization. While he was on leave in order to prepare his daughter's wedding, he was invited by telephone to attend an interview within two days. The complainant having stated he would not be able to attend the interview in that timeframe, his name was deleted from the list of candidates taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. "The failure to give reasonable notice to the complainant to attend an interview by refusing to take into account the family circumstances of the complainant at the time, followed by the elimination of the complainant from consideration when he could not attend, constitutes [a] flaw in the procedure adopted by the administration in respect of the selection for this post."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; flaw; notice; post; refusal; selection board;



  • Judgment 2040


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has held in many judgments, a decision by an international organisation to make an appointment is a discretionary one and as such is subject to only limited review. It may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases and will not replace the organisation's assessment of the candidates with its own (see Judgment 1497 [...])."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 2004


    90th Session, 2001
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    Out of six candidates, only the complainant was interviewed by video conference. "While the Tribunal is not to be understood as saying that a video conference is not a perfectly acceptable method of conducting interviews, care must always be taken to ensure that no candidate is given a potentially unfair advantage by that process. Flying one person across the ocean to be interviewed while leaving a competitor from the same area at home is open to the interpretation of unequal treatment."

    Keywords:

    bias; case sent back to organisation; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; limits; procedural flaw; remand;



  • Judgment 1982


    89th Session, 2000
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5(D)

    Extract:

    The complainant was an unsuccessful candidate for a post. The initial competition for the post was cancelled and the complainant argues that the subsequent competition and selection procedure were flawed. Therefore he asks that the decision appointing another candidate be set aside. "The Tribunal's case law has it that it is not necessary to take up the whole procedure when it is easy to determine the point at which it began to be flawed."

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; flaw; procedural flaw; rejected permanently; selection board;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top