Refusal (631,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Refusal
Total judgments found: 229
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 1815
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Board responsible for appraising the complainant's application for personal promotion had put forward a negative recommendation. "To ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome. And one such item is the names of the Advisory Body's members. Who they are may of course affect its reasoning and the weight its report carries, and so the staff member should be allowed at least to comment. That is why the Tribunal will acknowledge a complainant's right to know who sat in his case."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1771
85th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(c)
Extract:
"The complainant applies for an expert enquiry to determine whether she is fit for the duties of the post. Firm precedent has it that an executive head must be allowed discretion to determine what services the Organisation needs and whether someone is able to provide them, and that the Tribunal may exercise only a limited power of review over decisions on such matters. To allow the complainant's application for expert inquiry would be to assume that the Tribunal might replace the Director General's assessment of her with its own and would be alien to the notion of limited review [...]."
Keywords:
case law; competition; discretion; executive head; expert inquiry; judicial review; qualifications; refusal;
Judgment 1767
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The texts provide that one member of the Selection Committee "must be the Staff Association's President or his nominee'. [...] Here the Staff Association refused to take part in the selection. Although a representative of the Association is free to take part, his refusal to do so cannot make the Committee's choice void. If that were so, the Staff Association's representative would have a veto [...]."
Keywords:
consequence; participation; refusal; right; selection board; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1726
84th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
Although the Organisation's policy gave the complainant sound reasons to expect that he would be transferred to its Headquarters, "he did not have a legal right to demand such transfer and cannot recover any compensation for the failure to transfer him."
Keywords:
compensation; headquarters; practice; refusal; request by a party; transfer;
Judgment 1684
84th Session, 1998
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rules provide ordinarily for the filing of only two briefs by each party. There are no exceptional circumstances warranting a third one from the complainant, and since the arguments in it are immaterial the President of the Tribunal has disallowed it under Article 9(6)" of the Tribunal's Rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; closure of written proceedings; condition; exception; iloat statute; president of the tribunal; refusal; submissions;
Judgment 1661
83rd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant has applied for hearings to take evidence from several witnesses and from himself [...]". The Tribunal holds that there is no need for hearings or from the taking of evidence from the proposed witnesses and gives six reasons why.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; evidence; oral proceedings; refusal; right to reply; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 1633
83rd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Organization may not rely on the complainant's apparent willingness in March 1995 to accept a two-year extension of his contract: since it did not reply to his letter [...] it did not accept his offer. In April 1995 he sought an extension by five years, thereby withdrawing any offer to settle for two."
Keywords:
consequence; contract; extension of contract; failure to answer claim; intention of parties; offer; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 1541
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to precedent complaints are to be joined only if they raise the same issues of fact and of law. The [complainant's] ninth and tenth complaints do rest on the same facts [...] and impugn the same decision, albeit each challenges a different part of it. But the issues of law are different [...] so the conditions for joinder are not met."
Keywords:
case law; complainant; complaint; condition; identical facts; joinder; refusal;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization has "discharged its duty to take an express decision duly giving its reasons for not reinstating him. Its decision [not to reinstate him] takes seriatim all the posts he might have been appointed to. It explains the reasons of fact or law why it came to the view that his training, experience or grasp of languages or the need for special skills disqualified him for some posts. The reasons why he was not appointed to others had to do with the budget, some posts being 'frozen'. Or else the reasons were administrative: for example the Appointment and Promotion Board was not in favour, or the organization gave priority to a permanent employee."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for execution; budgetary reasons; due process; duration of appointment; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; knowledge of languages; organisation's duties; permanent appointment; priority; professional experience; promotion board; qualifications; refusal; reinstatement; selection board; training;
Judgment 1509
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
When the complainant lodged a claim to reinstatement "he was neither a serving nor a former official of UNIDO, to which he was no more than an outside applicant for employment and whose decision was in fact a refusal to recruit him. That decision raises no question of non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official of UNIDO, or of its Staff Regulations. So again the Tribunal may not entertain the claim."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; official; refusal; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 1439
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization refused to promote the complainant with effect from the date at which he met the material conditions on the grounds that he had been subject to disciplinary action. The Tribunal quashed the disciplinary action in an earlier judgment and the complainant finally got his promotion, albeit with some delay. The Tribunal rejects his claim to moral damages. "The delay in granting him promotion caused him no moral injury because the organisation acted in good faith in originally deciding not to promote him."
Keywords:
date; delay; disciplinary measure; effective date; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1416
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant charged the organization with breach of equal treatment when it assigned her to a new career path. The answer the Director-General gave her was ambiguous. "The Tribunal cannot therefore review the Director-General's reason for declining to put her on the same path as the other official, nor tell whether cern abided by the rules on fairness. Not having enough evidence to make a ruling, it will quash the impugned decision, though it will not order cern to put her on path iv as she asks."
Keywords:
assignment; career; equal treatment; equity; grounds; judicial review; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"As for the application for a stay of proceedings, Article 10(3) of the Rules says that 'the Tribunal [...] shall rule on an application by either party for a stay of proceedings'". The Tribunal holds that no stay of proceedings is warranted in this case. Whatever changes may be made in the procedure for filling vacant posts, the complaint must be reviewed in the light of the rules in force at the material time. Once the proceedings have begun, the Tribunal is bound to reach a decision as promptly as possible and will not stay the proceedings pending possible changes in the rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 10(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; applicable law; closure of written proceedings; competition cancelled; iloat statute; order of suspension; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; staff regulations and rules; submissions;
Consideration 24
Extract:
"To what extent must an administration substantiate its decisions? The answer is that it depends on the sort of decision that is to be substantiated. In the present case a distinction must be drawn between the rejection of an external application, particularly where a competition has attracted many candidates, and the rejection of an application by a serving official. In the latter case the organisation has a duty to maintain the relations of trust it has with the staff member, and although it must remain free to choose how it will notify the reasons to him it must be wary of damaging his career prospects."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; internal candidate; organisation's duties; purport; refusal; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1386
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The relief the complainant seeks includes reinstatement in his post or, failing that, damages for material and moral injury [...]. The Tribunal holds that reinstatement, which could only mean reinstatement for a further probationary period, would raise insurmountable practical difficulties because of the time that has elapsed since the date of dismissal [...]. [The complainant is] entitled to full compensation for the material and moral injury he sustained."
Keywords:
compensation; date; material damages; material injury; moral injury; probationary period; refusal; reinstatement; subsidiary; termination of employment;
Judgment 1376
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The organization has asked that if its objections to receivability are not upheld the Tribunal send the case back to the Headquarters Board of Appeal. The Tribunal will not do so. The Board has already had the opportunity to go into the merits but declined to do so, and there is no call to afford it the opportunity again."
Keywords:
due process; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; refusal; remand;
Judgment 1364
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In his first complaint the complainant is seeking "a retroactive benefit that would be at variance with the terms of his original appointment, to which he consented and which designated Varese as his home. The EPO is therefore right to refuse any change in that determination as to the past."
Keywords:
acceptance; amendment to the rules; appointment; decision; home; home leave; non-retroactivity; refusal; request by a party;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1324, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1324
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; equal treatment; home; home leave; nationality; official; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 1362
77th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal must rule yet again on WIPO's refusal to discharge the obligation to decide on reinstatement. As it has stated more than once, its judgments are to be given immediate effect. In the regrettable event that the Organization continues to disregard that rule and fails to act within 30 days of the date of delivery of this judgment, it must pay the complainant 10,000 swiss francs by way of penalty for each further month of delay."
Keywords:
amount; application for execution; continuing breach; decision; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; penalty for delay; refusal; reinstatement; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; decision; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; grounds; judicial review; no provision; official; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; request by a party; subsidiary; written rule;
Judgment 1313
76th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In an earlier judgment the Tribunal ordered the WHO to reinstate the complainant or, failing that, to pay him compensation. The WHO paid him the compensation after stating in a letter to him that it was unable to reinstate him. "The letter [...] does not say why reinstating him proved impossible. It is mere notification, not an explanation [...] its decision not to reinstate him therefore cannot stand."
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; material damages; refusal; reinstatement; subsidiary;
Judgment 1301
76th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant is objecting to a decision to put in her personal file several performance appraisals which she alleges were drawn up in breach of the established procedure and contained "libellous comments". The ILO says that she refused to submit any comments of her own on the reports and thereby prevented the review procedure from moving ahead. "The requirement that a complainant go through any internal procedure is not just a formality. [...] By refusing to [make] comments on the draft reports she is challenging the complainant failed to avail herself of the means at her disposal to have the reports withdrawn or altered. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; work appraisal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
