Decision-maker (544,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision-maker
Total judgments found: 55
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 1432
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"It is immaterial to the fact of recruitment that the decision to recruit her may have been taken ultra vires. [...] The organization must bear the consequences of any decision taken by someone it has itself appointed for the purpose".
Keywords:
appointment; contract; decision; decision-maker; lack of consent; liability; organisation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1375
77th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The want of proper delegation of the right to sign will not necessarily be fatal to a decision. What matters is the actual wording, and it may be necessary to refer to the evidence to determine who really took it."
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; judicial review;
Judgment 1324
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
See Judgment 525, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 525
Keywords:
abuse of power; amendment to the rules; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; formal flaw; home; home leave; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1290
75th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgment 1184, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1184
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head;
Judgment 1281
75th Session, 1993
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to the case law the grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation. So the Tribunal will not interfere with the decision impugned in this case unless it was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooks some material fact, or is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts. Moreover, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of the facts for the Secretary-General's."
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; competence; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; post classification; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1278
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"In Judgment 782 [...] the Tribunal stated the circumstances in which it would enforce a promise by an international organisation to a staff member. The promise must be substantive, i.e. to act, or not to act, or to allow; it must come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it; the breach of it must cause injury to the person who relies on it; and the position in law must not have altered between the date of the promise and the date at which fulfilment is due. It does not matter what form the promise takes: it may be written or oral, express or implied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782
Keywords:
case law; competence; condition; decision-maker; duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; promise;
Judgment 1273
75th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A decision not to renew an appointment, though discretionary, must be taken for proper reasons that are notified to the staff member. It will be unlawful if it was not taken by the competent authority and in line with the set rules of procedure, if there was a mistake of law or of fact or abuse of authority, or if some clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; competence; contract; decision; decision-maker; discretion; due process; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1265
75th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 1000, under 12, the Tribunal held that "when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one". The complainants may therefore challenge "the lawfulness of any measure taken by the Commission that serves as the basis for the decisions affecting them, whatever method may have been adopted to import it into the organization's own rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complainant; decision; decision-maker; general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; judicial review;
Judgment 1244
74th Session, 1993
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgment 532 [...], under 3, a decision is 'any action by an officer of the organization which has a legal effect'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; definition;
Judgment 1217
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6, Summary
Extract:
The complainant pleads that the impugned decision is unlawful because the Director of Administration had no authority to take it; the Director-General himself should have signed it, he argues. The plea fails. It is plain on the evidence that the decision gave effect to the Director-General's wishes. That is born out by the complainant's putting the matter to the Director-General after he got the impugned decision and by the Director-General's making plain that the decision by the Director of Administration squared with his own views on the matter.
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1185
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The complainant argues that the impugned decision was ultra vires. The organization says that it was at the Director-General's instructions that the leader of the personnel division notified the decision to the complainant and that as a matter of good faith any decision on personnel management should be deemed to have been taken by the competent authority. The organization argues that the leader of the personnel division enjoyed an implied delegation of authority. "Such a broad statement of principle is unsound. [...] There is no telling [...] who actually made the decision in this case. The text cites no delegation of authority to sign; the only reference to the decision is impersonal and raises no presumption whatever of such delegation."
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; presumption;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent a decision to grant an appointment, even though it is a matter of discretion, may be set aside, and one flaw that will be fatal is that it was taken without authority."
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 1184
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1185, considerations 2 and 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; presumption;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1185, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 1172
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the decision was ultra vires and, that being so, there is no time bar. He is mistaken. Lack of authority may be a reason for quashing a decision, but is not a reason for treating it as null and void. Provided that a text purports to be a decision, whoever may have taken it, it is challengeable in accordance with the set procedure."
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; procedure before the tribunal; time bar;
Judgment 1151
72nd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, a decision to appoint or promote a staff member, even though it is a matter of discretion, may be set aside, and one flaw that will be fatal is that it was taken without authority."
Keywords:
appointment; case law; competence; decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 1131
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that UNESCO's decision to separate the complainant from service after it abolished his post was flawed by the Organization's failure to abide by the rules in Circular No. 1583. The report of the Joint Co-Operation Committee, which was to make a recommendation on the case, gives no evidence of any discussion of the administration's proposals concerning the complainant. What is more, the proposal to freeze his post did not come from the competent authority. A redeployment proposal was rejected without having been discussed or put to the Director-General as required by the circular. As the complainant is not seeking reinstatement, the Tribunal grants him redress for material injury in the amount of one year's full pay.
Keywords:
abolition of post; administrative instruction; advisory body; advisory opinion; competence; consultation; decision-maker; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; reassignment; separation from service;
Judgment 1129
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant's post was abolished for reasons of financial stringency. According to Circular 1583 proposals to abolish a post must come from the competent Assistant Director-General. In this case the Assistant Director-General did not specifically name the complainant's post. He merely abolished the division which the complainant headed. It being impossible for the Director's post to survive after abolition of a division to direct, the allegation of a procedural flaw fails.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR NO. 1583
Keywords:
abolition of post; administrative instruction; budgetary reasons; competence; decision-maker; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; termination of employment;
Judgment 1090
70th Session, 1991
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The United Nations Secretary-General and the Director-General of the FAO delegated authority to the Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP) to apply and interpret the FAO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Under Regulation 14(j) of the General Rules of the WFP any special rules the Executive Director might propose must be approved by the UN Secretary-General and the Director-General of the FAO. The complainant contends that as the provisions of the new personnel policy implemented by the Executive Director never got the required approval they are not special rules at all and do not therefore apply to him. The Tribunal holds to the contrary that Regulation 14(j) does give the provisions the force of special rules: there is no specific form their approval must take and the competent authorities have not disapproved of them.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: REGULATION 14(J) OF THE GENERAL RULES OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME
Keywords:
competence; decision-maker; delegated authority; formal requirements;
Judgment 1001
68th Session, 1990
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"When impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision-maker; general decision; inquiry; investigation; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1000
68th Session, 1990
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
See Judgment 1001, consideration 12.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1001
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision-maker; general decision; inquiry; investigation; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 946
65th Session, 1988
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
"In this case the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was tainted with several fatal flaws. First, the decision was not taken by the competent authority. [...] What was even more serious was the failure to inform the complainant of the reasons for the decision."
Keywords:
competence; contract; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; flaw; grounds; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
