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

General principle (181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 900, 663, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645, 209, 211, 664,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: General principle
Total judgments found: 214

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • Judgment 4309


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his complaint of harassment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]here is a general principle of law that a person cannot simultaneously litigate the same issues in separate or concurrent proceedings (see Judgment 4085, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4085

    Keywords:

    general principle; parallel proceedings;



  • Judgment 4286


    130th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The [complainant's] allegations are however the subject of the complainant’s eighth complaint and will not be considered in this judgment by virtue of the general principle of law that a person cannot simultaneously litigate the same issues in separate or concurrent proceedings.

    Keywords:

    general principle; parallel proceedings;



  • Judgment 4241


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Regarding the applicable general principles, the Tribunal has stated that the question whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of. There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of these acts intended to engage in harassment, the main factor being the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him. The Tribunal’s case law has always recognised that an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (Judgment 4034, consideration 16). An unlawful decision or inappropriate behaviour is not enough to prove that harassment has occurred (Judgment 2861, consideration 37). The Tribunal has also held that behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question (Judgment 2370, consideration 17). It further stated that, on the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3996, consideration 7B).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2861, 3996, 4034

    Keywords:

    general principle; harassment;



  • Judgment 4086


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law has it that when a staff member of an international organization is transferred to a new post in non-disciplinary circumstances, that transfer is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting the staff member’s status. The organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the staff member, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level as that which she or he performed in her or his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see, for example, Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). This requirement is consistent with Staff Regulation 4.3(c) [...].
    The responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar (see, for example, Judgment 1343, under 9). It is not for the Tribunal to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto, as that exercise falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organization, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post (see, for example, Judgment 2373, under 7). However, every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that she or he should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 2360, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 2229, 2360, 2373

    Keywords:

    assignment; discretion; general principle; grade; judicial review; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; reclassification; respect for dignity; transfer;



  • Judgment 4062


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    It follows from these provisions [considerations 9 and 11], which, moreover, merely state general principles that apply to any professional appraisal procedure, that particular circumstances such as a serious lack of communication between an employee and her/his supervisors, or extraordinary pressure on the service that an employee is working in, resulting from an unbearable collective workload, must be taken into account in assessing the performance of a staff member.

    Keywords:

    general principle; performance evaluation; work appraisal;



  • 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 2

    Extract:

    The basic applicable principles where a decision not to renew a contract is challenged have been relevantly stated, for example, in Judgment 3586, considerations 6 and 10, as follows:
    “6. It bears recalling at this juncture that the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
    [...]
    10. It is firm principle that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1154, under 4).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3914


    125th Session, 2018
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    It is convenient to re-state that the complainant held a fixed-term contract, albeit that it was subject to the Short-Term Staff Rules. The case law states that even where a staff rule or regulation provides that such a contract shall expire automatically and without prior notice on the given expiration date, that does not exempt an international organization from notifying a staff member of the non-renewal of her or his contract (see, for example, Judgment 675, under 9 to 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 675

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract; notice;



  • Judgment 3911


    125th Session, 2018
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In consideration 8 [of Judgment 1484], the Tribunal [...] reiterated the principle that an organization may not take action which affects a staff member’s status before she or he is heard. It stated as follows:
    “Besides, according to general precepts of administrative law and the law of the international civil service an organization may not unilaterally take action that affects a staff member’s status before letting him have his say: Judgment 1082 […] affirmed that rule in 18: ‘By virtue of their contractual relationship and the trust that therefore prevails between them, an organisation owes its employee a duty to declare its intention of dismissing him and to let him plead his case.’
    The same principle was set out in Judgments 1212 [...] under 2 to 4 and 1395 [...] under 6.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1082, 1212, 1395, 1484

    Keywords:

    general principle; right to reply; termination of employment;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [W]hile the right to a prior written warning may be conferred by an organization’s internal rules, the Tribunal has also stated that it may arise from a general principle of law based on the organization’s duty of good faith and duty of care to its staff members.

    Keywords:

    general principle; right to reply; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 3883


    124th Session, 2017
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    [A]n organisation is bound by the rules it has itself issued until it amends or repeals them (Judgment 963, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 963

    Keywords:

    general principle; patere legem;



  • Judgment 3838


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for the non-renewal of any contract, and the official must be informed of that reason explicitly in a decision against which she or he can appeal. This principle also applies to the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment which, under the staff regulations or by agreement between the parties, ends automatically upon its expiry. This approach is justified by the fact that international organisations frequently resort to fixed-term contracts and the fact that the legitimate career expectations of those entering the service of these organisations would otherwise be denied.
    It follows that an official who holds a fixed-term contract that automatically ends upon expiry must be informed of the true reasons for not renewing that contract and must receive reasonable notice thereof (see for example Judgments 1154, under 4, 1544, under 11, 1983, under 6, 3368, under 11, and 3582, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154, 1544, 1983, 3368, 3582

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; general principle; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3758


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    As stated in Judgment 2170, under 14, “[a]n international organisation has a duty to comply with its own internal rules and to conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that these will be followed”. An organisation also has a duty to ensure that accurate information is provided to staff members. In turn, a staff member is entitled to rely on that information.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; general principle; patere legem;



  • Judgment 3339


    118th Session, 2014
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Employed on a part-time basis, the complainant seeks the payment of the additional hours he had been exceptionally required to work.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[T]he principle of lex specialis derogat generali [...] cannot be applied to laws which [...] are not at the same level of hierarchy."

    Keywords:

    general principle; precedence of rules;



  • 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 16

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944

    Keywords:

    case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3291


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;



  • Judgment 3264


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3240


    115th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant did not take issue with the use of the wrong form for his performance appraisal or with the fact that his immediate supervisor did not conduct the evaluation, this does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to act in compliance with its own Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual provisions implementing those rules (see Judgment 3177, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177

    Keywords:

    general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 3223


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
    The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • 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; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 3215


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;



  • 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 14

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2986, 3034

    Keywords:

    acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; request by a party;

    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 beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top