Decision (24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision
Total judgments found: 424
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
Judgment 2521
100th Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The Tribunal has frequently pointed out that it is for the person alleging harassment to prove specific facts supporting that allegation (see Judgments 2067, 2100, 2370 and 2406). [...] As with the facts relied on to establish harassment, it is for the person making the allegation to establish that the acts or decisions in question were accompanied by some purpose or attitude which allows them to be so characterised."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2100, 2370, 2406
Keywords:
burden of proof; case law; decision; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2515
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The decision to advertise the complainant's post [...] was in substance a decision to dismiss him from that post. No reason was ever provided for that decision [...] In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the decision resulted from the management review [conducted by the Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department]. In this regard, it is necessary only to observe that that review involved a denial of due process in that the complainant was not told precisely who had criticised his performance or conduct, nor was he told exactly what they had said. Moreover, he was not given an opportunity to question them or to rebut what was put against him. The decision to dismiss him from his post thus involved a serious breach of the requirements of due process."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; competition; contract; decision; due process; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; post; post held by the complainant; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; vacancy notice;
Consideration 22
Extract:
An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".
Keywords:
conduct; consequence; decision; duty to inform; good faith; grounds; increase; organisation's duties; refusal; step; subsidiary; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
age limit; bias; case law; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2510
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"An international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff (see Judgments 269 and 1614). As was pointed out in Judgment 1131, the Tribunal may not supplant an organisation's view with respect to these matters, and decisions on them are discretionary and subject to limited review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1131, 1614
Keywords:
abolition of post; creation of post; decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 2496
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;
Judgment 2494
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2473
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."
Keywords:
candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;
Judgment 2456
99th Session, 2005
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
The complainant joined the Organisation in January 1998 under a fixed-term appointment. His contract, which was extended in 2003, was due to expire on 14 June 2004; it was not renewed due to the implementation of the seven-year tenure rule. He has produced before the Tribunal a document signed by the Director-General containing data about his performance, in which his date of entry on duty was incorrectly shown as 24 May 1997. He contends that the Director-General relied on that data in deciding not to renew his contract. "Since in the implementation of its policy the Organisation was said to be applying a 'first in, first out' rule, an error of over seven months in the calculation of any employee's length of service may be of critical importance. That is especially the case where such apparent error has the effect of indicating wrongly that the employee would at the time of his separation from the Organisation have served more than seven years. The Tribunal considers the alleged errors of fact to be material. [...] The non-renewal decision must be set aside and the Organisation shall be ordered to pay to the complainant the full balance of salary and benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had received a one-year extension of his contract to 14 June 2005. The complainant must account for any earnings from other employment during that period."
Keywords:
allowance; appointment; consequence; contract; date; decision; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension of contract; fixed-term; general principle; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; period; reckoning; right; salary; staff member's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2427
99th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[T]he fact that financial considerations were taken into account does not, in itself, invalidate the decision setting the salary scale, provided that the other reasons justifying the decision are correct. In the present case, the evidence on file shows that the scale ultimately adopted was justified by the desire to reduce the imbalances resulting from the application of the previous decisions penalising staff in the higher categories, to restore the remuneration margins in relation to US federal civil servants to values within the range of 110 to 120 and to move closer to attaining the objective of an overall margin level of 115."
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; decision; grounds; professional category; rate; salary; scale;
Judgment 2418
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Appeals Committee considered that the promotion procedure carried out under the vacancy notice was legally flawed and it unanimously recommended that the three contested appointments be revoked and that the application procedure be re-run. The President of the Office refused to re-run the procedure as recommended by the Committee. The Tribunal, having found that the challenged decision was irregular, in breach of the principle of equal treatment and that the Administration's attitude showed a distinct lack of even-handedness, awards punitive damages in the sum of 2,500 euros to each complainant.
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; equal treatment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; punitive damages;
Judgment 2414
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The fundamental considerations which lead to the conclusion that an organisation must comply with the rules which it has established also dictate the conclusion that it 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." That is true for salary increments as well as for decisions not to convert or renew a contract.
Keywords:
contract; decision; due process; fixed-term; grounds; increase; increment; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; permanent appointment; salary; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2410
98th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[M]onthly pension payments are not notified individually except when pensioners are informed of decisions concerning the rate of adjustment decided by CERN's competent bodies. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that, while the bank statement does not constitute a decision, it does reflect a decision taken to credit the complainant's account and, just like a payslip, this decision may be challenged by all legal means."
Keywords:
adjustment; date of notification; decision; general decision; individual decision; payslip; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint; salary;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[I]t is CERN's Council which decides pension adjustments; and the individual decisions on pension rates have as their sole legal basis the general decisions taken periodically by CERN's Council, the lawfulness of which may indeed be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against such individual decisions (see Judgments 1000, 1451 and 2129). In this case, the complainant's objections concern only the lawfulness of the position advocated by the Governing Board of the Pension Fund, when it considered that it could not give its backing to the extraordinary pension adjustment requested by the [CERN Pensioners' Association, of which the complainant is the President]. Since this refusal to support the latter's request before CERN's competent bodies cannot be considered as a legislative act of general application, any pleas based on its alleged unlawfulness must fail."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article II.1.15 of the Regulations of the CERN's Pension Fund
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1451, 2129
Keywords:
adjustment; advisory opinion; cern pension fund; decision; executive body; general decision; individual decision; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2408
98th Session, 2005
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew her contract was not taken in implementation of the staff turnover policy [but] to rid the OPCW of the serious personal and professional conflict that existed between two senior members of the Secretariat and to avoid the necessity of taking steps to resolve that conflict. That was an improper purpose and to take a decision for that reason under cover of implementation of the staff turnover policy is both an abuse of authority and an act which demonstrates want of good faith."
Keywords:
abuse of power; contract; decision; good faith; grounds; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; purpose; working relations;
Judgment 2406
98th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]he defendant is right to point out that the complainant held only fixed-term expert's contracts [and] that he had no right to renewal [...]. Nevertheless, the decision not to renew his contract should be based on valid reasons."
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right;
Judgment 2373
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The decision to redefine the functions of a post is the prerogative of the Director-General, 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."
Keywords:
decision; definition; discretion; executive head; post; post description; qualifications; recommendation;
Judgment 2370
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."
Keywords:
claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;
Judgment 2366
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Ordinarily, the process of decision making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. Occasionally however, what appears to be a single and final decision may embody more than one decision. That will be the case if separate and distinct issues have to be decided. So, too, a decision which does not resolve an entire dispute may nonetheless constitute a final decision if it is a decision on a separate and distinct issue. The present is such a case."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; decision; definition; difference; general principle; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"It is clear from Judgments 1560, 2112, 2201, and 2213 that a decision becomes binding on an organisation only when it is notified to the official concerned in the prescribed manner or in some other manner that gives rise to an inference that it was intended to notify the official of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560, 2112, 2201, 2213
Keywords:
binding character; case law; condition; decision; difference; formal requirements; official; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
