Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Judicial review
Total judgments found: 548
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | next >
Judgment 3362
118th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his short-term contract and not to advertise his post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to create a post, like all decisions relating to the management of posts or the organisation of services, is a discretionary decision the wisdom of which the Tribunal obviously cannot judge, having only a limited power of review (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, and 2856, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2856
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 3350
118th Session, 2014
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her request for readjustment of her annual basic salary and reclassification of her post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t should be noted that in the area of post classification the Tribunal leaves a considerable degree of discretion to organisations. It cannot simply substitute its own assessment for theirs. Decisions taken in this area are subject to only limited review, and can be set aside only if they were taken without authority, show some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlook some material fact, draw clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or involve an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3273, under 6, and Judgment 2581, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 3322
117th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision not to grant her personal promotion.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already had occasion to find in Judgment 3063 concerning the complainant’s complaint directed against the outcome of the 2006 exercise, by its very nature a decision regarding personal promotion lies at the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation and is therefore subject to only limited review. For this reason, it may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 3, 2668, under 11, or 3084, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2668, 3063, 3084
Keywords:
judicial review; personal promotion;
Judgment 3318
117th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In its reply, the Organization maintains that the Director-General was right in considering that the Appeals Committee had overstepped its mandate. To support this view it merely refers to the case law concerning the limitations to which the Tribunal’s own power of review is subject. In so doing, it commits an error in law. As a matter of fact, the power of such a review body extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to it and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions.
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review;
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 3289
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[T]he contents of the written censure go beyond the findings of the JAB or are not compatible with those findings. Having accepted the recommendations of the JAB based on those findings, the written censure should have reflected, in a balanced way, those recommendations."
Keywords:
censure; judicial review; recommendation;
Judgment 3284
116th Session, 2014
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to conduct a review of the grade assigned to his post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Much of the detailed factual material and analysis advanced by the parties was designed to show (on the complainant’s part) or rebut (on the OPCW’s part) that since early 2007 the complainant had not simply been performing the tasks of the G-5 level position but had been performing the tasks of a P-2 position. This factual dispute and its resolution in the complainant’s favour was in support of his claim for material damages being the difference in salary, emoluments, pension contributions, and other benefits he would have earned or received at the P-2 level from 1 January 2007. However, the Tribunal’s role is not to undertake the evaluative task of determining what is or should have been the appropriate classification for any particular position (such as that held by the complainant in January 2007 and thereafter) nor the allied evaluative task of determining what is or should have been the appropriate remuneration. In a case such as the present a complainant’s right to either material or moral damages or both must be founded on a demonstrated failure of the employing organisation and its administration to comply with the applicable staff rules and regulations or the principles that have developed in this Tribunal governing the relationship between staff and an organisation.
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3282
116th Session, 2014
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The guarantee of access to justice is a guarantee of access to a judge, which the complainant has in his ability to bring a complaint before the Tribunal. [...] In this case, Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules provides that there is no internal remedy for decisions regarding non-renewal of contract and as such, the complainant has direct access to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; internal appeal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3279
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol’s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944
Keywords:
case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;
Judgment 3273
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place his post in a certain grade group following an allegedly flawed assessment process.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently confirmed that an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
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 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3251
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant's request to be included on the list of eligible candidates for personal promotion was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the ILO conducted the 2008 personal promotion exercise in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The ILO properly applied the new Office Procedure (No. 125, which took effect from 22 October 2009) to the 2008 personal promotion exercise. [...] Considering that the 2008 promotion exercise was launched after Office Procedure No. 125 took effect, the ILO was correct to follow its provisions for the promotion exercise, and not those of Circular No. 334, Series 6, as the complainant suggests. The complainant did not have any acquired right to the 2008 promotion exercise, promotions being considered “an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal” (see Judgments 2668, under 11, 1500, under 4, 1109, under 4, and 1973, under 5)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Office Procedure No. 125; Circular No. 334, Series 6
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1500, 1973, 2668
Keywords:
acquired right; condition; discretion; interpretation; judicial review; organisation's duties; personal promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 3228
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his staff report, alleging that it was flawed by procedural errors.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, issues raised by staff reports “are discretionary and the Tribunal will set aside or amend a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. Those criteria are the more stringent because the EPO has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a joint body whose members are directly familiar with the workings of the Office.” (See Judgment 1688, under 5, and also Judgments 806, under 15, and 1144, under 7.) It is clear from the case law that the Tribunal will not interfere with the discretionary assessment of the decision-maker unless there is a reviewable error."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 246
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806, 1144, 1688
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; procedural flaw; rebuttal;
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3209
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.
Consideration 11
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Being subject to only limited review, it may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 3193
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;
Judgment 3189
114th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge their placement in the new grade structure following the entry into force of the administrative reform at Eurocontrol.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The] duty of care [...] does not in any way imply a duty always to interpret texts in the staff’s favour."
Keywords:
duty of care; interpretation; interpretation of rules; judicial review; organisation's duties; written rule;
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 16
Extract:
"It has been accepted by this Tribunal that ultimately the question of whether conduct constitutes harassment is a matter of fact involving consideration of all the circumstances (see Judgment 2553)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553
Keywords:
harassment; interpretation; judicial review;
Judgment 3156
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, who are former staff representatives, unsuccessfully challenge decisions which, in their view, constituted violations of the right of staff representation.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Since organisations must prevent [any] abuse of the right of free speech [enjoyed by bodies representing the staff], the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by [such] bodies [...]. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message."
Keywords:
bias; breach; collective rights; condition; facilities; flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; refusal; right; staff representative; staff union;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | next >
|
