Mistake of fact (565,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of fact
Total judgments found: 62
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director-General. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
Judgment 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:
abuse of power; 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; staff regulations and rules;
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 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2175
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11(c)
Extract:
"The complainant states that the Director-General based the decision not to renew his contract on the false assumption that he was using [his] project for self-enrichment purposes. If that were true, however, it would be grounds for immediate termination and not merely non-renewal of a fixed-term contract."
Keywords:
contract; decision; executive head; fixed-term; grounds; misconduct; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; termination of employment; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 2172
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The organisation extended the complainant's probationary period and transferred her following an unfavourable performance appraisal report. She submits that her supervisors failed to observe the procedure for the completion of performance appraisal reports. The Tribunal considers that "even if her supervisor appeared to follow the proper procedure by sending her the appraisal report [...] before the second-level supervisor had signed it, in order for the procedure to be meaningful, the second-level supervisor should not have written her comments until the complainant's supervisor had answered the memorandum [in which the complainant contested her appraisal]. The process is not a dialogue if one party does not listen to another. in this case, the complainant's supervisor did not consider the complainant's comments when preparing the evaluation. The evidence thus supports the complainant's allegation that the proper procedure was not followed [...] the decision to extend the probationary period was based on a flawed appraisal and the complainant should have been confirmed in her post."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; decision; different appraisals; extension of contract; mistake of fact; performance report; period; post; probationary period; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; supervisor; transfer; 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:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 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:
complainant; consequence; flaw; grade; injury; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents.
The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2114
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2090
92nd Session, 2002
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation asserts that "Article 1010.1 allows it to terminate an appointment by giving one month's notice per year of service [...] The Tribunal observes that [...] 1010.1 may not be interpreted as authorising [the organisation] to terminate [fixed- term] contracts arbitrarily. Decisions of this kind must be based on unsatisfactory performance, or the interests of the service. Furthermore, there must be no breach of adversarial procedure nor any error of fact or of law, nor abuse of authority, nor obvious misappraisal of the facts."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1010.1 OF THE IFRC STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
abuse of power; adversarial proceedings; bias; contract; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; notice; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; provision; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2040
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has held in many judgments, a decision by an international organisation to make an appointment is a discretionary one and as such is subject to only limited review. It may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases and will not replace the organisation's assessment of the candidates with its own (see Judgment 1497 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1969
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal will quash [...] a decision [of a discretionary nature] only if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1713
84th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In choosing figures of local pay for the purpose of applying Flemming there can be no single hard-and-fast approach. As was held in Judgment 1265, the [ICSC] must be allowed some discretion over method, even though the Tribunal will still review the exercise of it. The decision impugned may not stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1265
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; flemming principle; icsc decision; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; salary;
Judgment 1576
82nd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Since the award of end-of-service promotion falls within the Director-General's discretion, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review: it will intervene only if there has been breach of some rule of form or procedure or a mistake of law or fact or failure to take some essential fact into account."
Keywords:
discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; procedural flaw; promotion; separation from service;
Judgment 1564
82nd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The firm case law has it that the Tribunal will not interfere with the comparison of entrants in a competition. Only when it appears that the choice of candidate may rest on some mistake of fact or law or there may have been misuse of authority will the Tribunal order the production of evidence so that it may review such comparison and will the complainant be entitled to see such evidence. In the instant case the review of the selection procedure reveals neither a breach of the Organization's Staff Regulations or other rules, nor any mistake of fact or law, nor misuse of authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; candidate; case law; competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1463
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Several judgments say that a decision on a staff report, being a discretionary one, may be set aside only on limited grounds such as a mistake of fact or of law or failure to take account of some material fact: see [...] Judgments 724 [...], 806 [...] and 1144 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 724, 806, 1144
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; judicial review; mistake of fact; performance report;
Judgment 1436
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As was said for example in Judgment 1223, the Tribunal will not interfere with comparison of candidates in a competition. Only when it appears that the choice rests on a mistake of fact or law or that there has probably been misuse of authority will the Tribunal order the defendant to produce further evidence so that it may review such comparison."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; candidate; case law; competition; due process; evidence; further submissions; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; presumption of innocence; qualifications; selection procedure;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 36
Extract:
The complainant objects to the actuarial method which the organisation used in a study of the pension fund's foreseeable costs. "Like any public authority, the EPO enjoys a presumption in its favour - especially when it is taking technical measures and it has done thorough preparatory work - that its choice of actuarial method is the most suitable and the fairest. [...] It is of course open to a staff member under a system of administrative law to challenge the organisation's choice, but he must be able to adduce evidence to show why the chosen method, when compared with others, may suffer from technical flaws that should have disqualified it."
Keywords:
actuarial valuation; burden of proof; contributions; discretion; evidence; increase; judicial review; mistake of fact; organisation; pension; reckoning; right of appeal;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law - especially Judgment 1235 [...] - the Director-General is not bound by the appointment and Promotion Committee's recommendations and in particular need not appoint the candidate the Committee has put first. In the exercise of discretion, he must ensure that his choice is not tainted with any mistake of law or fact and, to allow the tribunal to exercise its power of review, he must state the reasons for his decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1235
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; promotion board;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
