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

Advisory body (81,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory body
Total judgments found: 88

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

  • Judgment 3969


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Disciplinary Committee’s opinion in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the disciplinary proceedings and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is an opinion of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400

    Keywords:

    advisory body; disciplinary procedure;



  • Judgment 3944


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    According to the case law established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment without his or her consent constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order to decide whether there may have been a breach of an acquired right, it is therefore necessary to determine whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgment 3571, under 7). In this case, the Tribunal considers that the abolition of the Joint Advisory Committee does not affect a fundamental and essential term of employment. Moreover, it cannot generally be accepted that the rules on disciplinary action are an integral part of the fundamental and essential terms of employment which induce a person to apply for a post or to remain in the international civil service.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 986, 3571

    Keywords:

    acquired right; advisory body; disciplinary procedure; discontinuance;



  • Judgment 3621


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges two appointments of the President of the Office to the Internal Appeals Committee on the grounds that they were not preceded by consultation of the General Advisory Committee.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    advisory body; appointment; consultation; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 3534


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The two complainants, who were members of the General Advisory Committee, contest the nomination of the Chairman of the Committee for the year 2010.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    advisory body; appointment; joinder;



  • Judgment 3295


    116th Session, 2014
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229

    Keywords:

    advisory body; confidential evidence; decision; effect; general principle; inquiry; international civil servant; provision; report; right; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3290


    116th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315

    Keywords:

    advisory body; competence of tribunal; decision-maker; judicial review; reassignment; report;



  • Judgment 3234


    115th Session, 2013
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319

    Keywords:

    advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure;



  • Judgment 3216


    115th Session, 2013
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to reply; staff member's interest;



  • 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 24

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
    "The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
    [T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension; general principle; grounds; international civil servant; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 3173


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the refusal to grant her compensation for an illness which she considers as attributable to the performance of her official duties.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The approach of the Organization, which is a reflection of the position adopted by the Managing Director, involves an assumption which would not, in all cases, be correct. The assumption is that work-related stress said by an employee to be the result of abuse and harassment, can only arise if, as an objective fact, there has been abuse and harassment. Such an approach takes no account of the possibility that stress can be the product of perceptions and not reality. Put slightly differently, an employee may be exposed to conduct which, viewed objectively, would not be characterised as abuse and harassment. But it does not follow that exposure to that conduct could not induce work-related stress in an employee who perceived that conduct as abusive and harassing. For this reason the answer to the question that was to be considered by the independent panel, i.e. whether the complainant had been subjected to “constant harassment and abuse” by her supervisor would not necessarily have answered the question raised by the complainant’s claim for compensation considered by the [Advisory Board on Compensation Claims]. Her claim raised the question of whether her supervisor’s conduct caused a stress-related illness not whether his conduct, viewed objectively, could be characterised as abuse and harassment."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; compensation; harassment; injury; service-incurred; working conditions;



  • Judgment 3166


    114th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    "[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
    The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071

    Keywords:

    advisory body; claim; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material damages; moral damages; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3158


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he conditions listed in the explanatory note of 20 October 2000 involve an interpretation of both 'generally accepted medical treatment' and 'proven therapeutic effects', in order to determine what constitutes 'medicines' for the purpose of Article 20(b)(2) of the [Collective Insurance Contract]. The Tribunal considers that such an interpretation implies a medical opinion. Accordingly, the questions of whether the products prescribed for the use of the complainant are 'medicines' for the purpose of the insurance policy and whether the complainant is entitled to be reimbursed under the policy consistent with his rights under Article 83 of the Service Regulations, require a medical opinion. As a result, these questions have to be referred to the Medical Committee in accordance with Article 90(1), paragraph 2 [...]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 83 and 90 of Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; insurance; insurance benefit; interpretation; medical board; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;



  • Judgment 3126


    113th Session, 2012
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
    "This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; breach; complaint allowed in part; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure; right to reply; termination;



  • Judgment 3010


    111th Session, 2011
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    Abolition of post and termination of contract following restructuring / Failure by the Organization to consult the joint advisory body (Appointment and Promotion Board) prior to terminating the complainant's contract .
    "[T]he purpose of a provision requiring referral of the proposed termination of a contract to an advisory body is, as stated in Judgment 2352, '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'".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2352

    Keywords:

    advisory body; condition; contract; decision; executive head; provision; purpose; recommendation; termination;



  • Judgment 2996


    110th Session, 2011
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15 and 16

    Extract:

    "While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671

    Keywords:

    advisory body; bias; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; exception; international civil servant; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard; same;



  • Judgment 2940


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2877


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2875, [...] which raises the same issue in substance as the present case, the Tribunal held that, to the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]. Although the complainants in this case have not based their arguments on the Pension Scheme Regulations, the rulings in considerations 6 to 10 of that judgment are equally applicable to their complaints."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2875

    Keywords:

    advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2876


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee.
    "In Judgment 2875, [...] which raises the same issue in substance as the present case, the Tribunal held that, to the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]. Although the complainants in this case have not based their arguments on the Pension Scheme Regulations, the rulings in considerations 6 to 10 of that judgment are equally applicable to their complaints."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2875

    Keywords:

    advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2875


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    In their capacity as members of the General Advisory Committee, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee.
    "[T]o the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 10(2) Pension Scheme Regulations; Articles 1(5) and 38(3) Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office

    Keywords:

    advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2865


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; international civil servant; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;

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


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top