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

Misuse of authority (571, 572,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Misuse of authority
Total judgments found: 137

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >

  • Judgment 4161


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a settlement agreement.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    It is well established in the case law that “bad faith cannot be presumed, it must be proven. Additionally, bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose” (see Judgment 2800, consideration 21, cited in Judgment 3154, consideration 7; see also Judgment 3902, consideration 11). What is more, “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): 2800, 3154, 3902, 3939

    Keywords:

    bad faith; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 4155


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to allow all staff to vote when members of the Staff Council are elected.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    In November 2014, the Director General sent a message to the staff effectively declaring that Staff Regulation 8.1 required all staff to be able to vote in an election for the Staff Council. Thereafter the Administration, guided by an opinion of the JAG, took steps to alter the status quo ante and bring about the election of members of the Staff Council by all staff rather than only those who are members of the Staff Association. [...]
    The circumstances prevailing immediately before November 2014 were that the body described in Staff Regulation 8.1 was constituted by members of the Staff Association who had been elected to the Association’s Staff Council under the rules of the Association. This involved, at least implicitly, an acceptance by the Administration that Staff Regulation 8.1 permitted or authorised the constitution of the Staff Council in this way. What, in effect, WIPO has done, is adopt and assert an interpretation of Staff Regulation 8.1 which is partisan in the sense that it is an interpretation which was obviously aimed at disadvantaging the Staff Association and its members, having regard to the long-standing practice concerning the constitution of the Staff Council, and favouring the Administration in the sense that it does not have to deal with individuals, as members of the Staff Council, with, necessarily, what is almost certainly significant authority deriving from the membership of the Staff Association and their election by that membership. This constitutes an abuse of power.

    Keywords:

    freedom of association; misuse of authority; practice;



  • Judgment 4146


    128th Session, 2019
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond nine years of service.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 3861, under 9, that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury, and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests. The Tribunal has also observed that in order for there to be misuse of authority, it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the organisation’s interests and that the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see, for example, Judgment 3193, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3193, 3861

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; good faith; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 4099


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant raises numerous grievances against WHO, claiming that she was a victim of collusion between certain officials, unfavourable bias, misuse of authority, discrimination and reprisals.
    However, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of this kind can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 1775, consideration 7, 2116, consideration 4(a), 2885, consideration 12, 3380, consideration 9, 3543, consideration 20, or 3914, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 2116, 2885, 3380, 3543, 3914

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; misuse of authority;



  • 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 4072


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recognizes that international organizations have the discretion to manage their performance management objectives but highlights that they must do so using the tools they have in the manner in which they are designed (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).
    [...]
    In the present case, the Global Fund sought to use a tool (the performance improvement plan) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, in order to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds that this inappropriate use of the PIP constitutes a misuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    misuse of authority; performance evaluation; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recognizes that international organizations have the discretion to manage their performance management objectives but highlights that they must do so using the tools they have in the manner in which they are designed (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).
    [...]
    In the present case, the Global Fund sought to use a tool (the performance improvement plan) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, in order to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds that this inappropriate use of the PIP constitutes a misuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary (see Judgments 3610, consideration 9, and 3750, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    misuse of authority; performance evaluation; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 4067


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    As is well established, bad faith or misuse of authority must be proved and is never presumed, and the party alleging bad faith or misuse of authority must prove it (see, for example, Judgments 2800, consideration 21, and 3939, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3939

    Keywords:

    bad faith; burden of proof; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 4003


    126th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for damages related to her arrest and detention in Libya while on an official mission.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that the reasons given in the [...] decision to reject the complainant’s claim for compensation were not supported by the evidence. Moreover, the Registrar relied on documents to which he refused to give the complainant access, while mischaracterizing the findings of those documents in a clear breach of her due process rights. He also misinformed the complainant that he had been ordered to destroy the consultant’s report and therefore could not give her a copy while knowing full well that the disclosure of the report to the complainant had already been approved. This constitutes an act of bad faith. The Registrar’s correspondence with the complainant shows that he repeatedly threatened her with charges of misconduct and possible disciplinary action unless she accepted the ICC’s offer during conciliation proceedings. This was an abuse of power and further evidence of bad faith.

    Keywords:

    bad faith; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3996


    126th Session, 2018
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.

    Consideration 4B

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant bears the burden of proving malice, bad faith or misuse of authority (see Judgment 3743, under 12, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3743

    Keywords:

    bad faith; burden of proof; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3948


    125th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he plea of abuse of authority in relation to the non-renewal decision is one of the generic grounds of challenge to a discretionary administrative decision. Thus the following was stated in Judgment 3172, consideration 16:
    “A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; misuse of authority;



  • 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 10

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the impugned decision, which was taken at a time when the relationship between the ISAU and the Administration of UNESCO was fraught, is tainted with abuse of authority in that it stemmed from a wish to harm the interests of the Association and the members of its Executive.
    However, as the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see, for example, Judgments 2116, under 4(a), 2885, under 12, or 3543, under 20). While some documents in the file show that there was a certain amount of tension between the ISAU and the Organization’s services, they are not sufficient to establish that the decision to deny the complainant’s request was based on reasons connected with that tension.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2885, 3543

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3933


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    There is some support in the Tribunal’s case law for the proposition that it is open to the Tribunal to examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of a post in a challenge to the subsequent termination of a staff member’s employment, even if no legal challenge was made, within time or at all, to the abolition of the post itself (see Judgment 3172, consideration 16). However even if, in the face of more recent case law referred to in the preceding consideration, it is open to the Tribunal to do so, it is for the limited purpose of, for example, ascertaining whether there has been an abuse of authority which entails consideration of whether the decision was taken for an improper purpose. The case law certainly does not provide a licence to examine all or any other aspects of the decision to abolish the post in the context of dealing with a challenge to the subsequent termination of employment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; judicial review; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3932


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.

    Considerations 21 & 26

    Extract:

    The determinative issue in this case is whether the evaluation of the complainant’s performance was procedurally flawed. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an organisation has a wide discretion in deciding whether to renew a fixed-term appointment and its right to refuse to renew can be based on unsatisfactory performance”. As well, “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned if it is fatally flawed by, for example, procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law” (see Judgment 3743, consideration 2, and the cases cited therein). The Tribunal has also consistently held that “an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance” (see Judgment 3252, consideration 8, and the case cited therein).
    [...]
    It was only in the memorandum of 9 July 2012 that the complainant was informed of the extensive deficiencies in her performance both in terms of her duties and conduct. This letter cannot be viewed as a proper or fair evaluation for a number of reasons. First, it was not in compliance with the mandatory PEMS. Second, other than the deficiencies identified in the audit attributed to the complainant, the letter does not give any detail with respect to when and what the observations were and which interactions with other colleagues at headquarters and in the SAP gave rise to concerns. [...] Third, the unilateral determination that the eleven deficiencies identified in the audit were solely attributable to the complainant and that the renewal of her fixed-term contract was, therefore, in jeopardy, without providing the complainant with an opportunity to respond, was a clear breach of the complainant’s due process rights. This was further exacerbated by her supervisor’s and the Director, OSD’s failure to reply to or take into account the complainant’s extensive response to the alleged deficiencies attributed to her in the audit report.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 3743

    Keywords:

    misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3929


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3928


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3902


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him the indemnity due in the event of the closure of the CDE.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    There is an abuse of authority when 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, under 8; see also Judgment 2885, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 2885

    Keywords:

    misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3750


    123rd Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her separation from service under a separation agreement.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    By leading the complainant to believe that she had underperformed, the Global Fund abused its authority and put the complainant under unlawful pressure, which vitiated her consent in signing the separation agreement, which she did under the false impression that she had underperformed. As the offer of a PIP was unlawful, the separation agreement signed by the complainant is null and void on the grounds that she signed it under duress.

    Keywords:

    duress; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3743


    123rd Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant bears the burden of proving malice, bad faith or misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3543, consideration 20, and 3678, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3543, 3678

    Keywords:

    bad faith; malice; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3732


    123rd Session, 2017
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; misuse of authority;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top