Discretion (547, 548, 549, 550, 551,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Discretion
Total judgments found: 609
< 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, 29, 30, 31 | next >
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;
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;
Judgment 2357
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It was said in Judgments 1835, 1836 and 1837 that the application of Article 71(2)[regarding the conditions of award of an education allowance] 'is at the discretion of the President of the Office'. It is not strictly accurate to describe a decision as to the application of Article 71(2) as discretionary. The question whether a particular school or university corresponds to a 'child's educational stage' is essentially a question of fact, albeit one that may, in some circumstances, permit of a value judgment. However, because of the nature of that question, a decision under Article 71(2) is subject to limited review on the same grounds as a discretionary decision properly so called. Thus, it will be reviewed only for procedural error, mistake of fact or law, the drawing of a clearly mistaken conclusion or misuse of authority. In particular, this Tribunal will not substitute its view of the facts for that reached by the President."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 71(2) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1835, 1836, 1837
Keywords:
abuse of power; allowance; case law; condition; decision; discretion; education expenses; enforcement; executive head; grounds; interpretation; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
The complainant submits that the behaviour of the Administration towards her amounted to harassment since she got only a one-step salary increase, rather than the two proposed by her supervisor, and only a two-year extension of contract rather than the customary three years. The Tribunal considers that such decisions "were decisions which the Secretary-General was entitled to reach in the exercise of his discretion. That being so, such decisions can only be viewed as part of a campaign of harassment if the other events upon which the complainant relies give rise to an inference that these were taken because of hostility, ill will or other improper motive. The complainant has failed to prove harassment."
Keywords:
burden of proof; cumulative decisions; decision; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; extension of contract; grounds; harassment; increment; lack of evidence; recommendation; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "A change in the nature of the discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant future rights by the extension or renewal of a contract cannot be said to effect a change in an existing legal interest, much less in an existing legal right or existing legal status. Accordingly, the seven year policy embodied in [the] directive [...] is not retroactive even if the seven year period is computed from a time prior to the proclamation of that policy."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; career; consequence; contract; date; decision; discretion; exception; extension of contract; general principle; limits; non-local status; official; organisation; period; professional category; publication; reckoning; right; staff member's interest; status of complainant; terms of appointment; written rule;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2308
96th Session, 2004
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-18
Extract:
"The complainant seeks compensation in lost salary and benefits for the years during which she has been remunerated on the basis of short-term employment while performing work of indefinite duration equivalent to that of a fixed-term staff member. In other words, she claims a retroactive fixed-term status. There is no basis on which the complainant can claim to be treated retroactively as if she had a fixed-term contract. She was recruited as a short-term staff member without having to go through a competition process; she accepted several contract renewals. It was within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide during all those years whether to renew each short-term contract or offer her a fixed-term contract [...]. She accepted and signed all the short-term contracts. [...] If it is sought to have the Tribunal treat those short-term contracts as being null, it must be shown that they have violated some fundamental and overriding principle of law or that her apparent consent thereto was vitiated (see Judgment 2097, under 11). This, the complainant has failed to do."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; burden of proof; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; fixed-term; injury; lack of consent; law of contract; offer; short-term; status of complainant;
Judgment 2272
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
A rule, "approved by the Administrative Council, [cannot] be called into question by the President. It is true that, when deciding to promote or not to promote a permanent employee, the President enjoys discretionary authority, subject to the Tribunal¿s limited power of review. Within the bounds of this limited power of review, however, the Tribunal considers whether decisions referred to it are not flawed by abuse of authority or error of law. In the present case, the complainant argues rightly that by refusing to apply to his case a rule which had been approved by the Administrative Council, despite the fact that he met the necessary requirements, the President committed an error of law and abused his authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; condition; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; interpretation; judicial review; limits; misuse of authority; promotion; refusal; repeal; written rule;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that the competent bodies of the Organisation may repeal or modify rules they have established, subject to compliance with the principle that similar acts require similar rules, as pointed out in Judgment 1896, but that those bodies' discretionary powers are limited by the general principles of international civil service law, including the principle of equality, whereby officials in the same circumstances should be treated in the same way."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1896
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; discretion; equal treatment; general principle; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; provision; repeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. "In accordance with the established case law of all international administrative tribunals, the Tribunal reaffirms that the independence of international civil servants is an essential guarantee, not only for the civil servants themselves, but also for the proper functioning of international organisations. In the case of heads of organisations, that independence is protected, inter alia, by the fact that they are appointed for a limited term of office. To concede that the authority in which the power of appointment is vested - in this case the Conference of the States parties of the Organisation - may terminate that appointment in its unfettered discretion, would constitute an unacceptable violation of the principles on which international organisations' activities are founded [...], by rendering officials vulnerable to pressures and to political change. The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appointment; breach; case law; condition; discretion; exception; executive body; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; hidden disciplinary measure; iloat; independence; internal appeals body; limits; member state; official; organisation; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment; tribunal;
Judgment 2222
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Referring to the Tribunal's case law, in particular Judgments 70 and 1543, the defendant submits that the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, does not extend to disputes regarding the Director-General's discretion to waive diplomatic immunity. It is worth noting that the complainant does not in fact [...] challenge the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity in itself. He rather challenges the circumstances in which that decision was taken, which in his view violated his contractual rights or those arising from the general principles of law which should be observed by international organisations. Since the case law referred to by the defendant does not apply, the Tribunal is of the view that only a consideration of the merits of the case may show whether the complainant's allegations are well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70, 1543
Keywords:
breach; case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; general principle; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right; terms of appointment; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
Judgment 2198
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The complainant worked, from 1993 to 2000, under a series of short-term contracts of varying durations. "It was clearly within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide whether to renew the complainant's short-term contract or offer him a fixed-term contract. The complainant cannot now claim to be treated retroactively as if he had a fixed-term contract; he was at all times a short-term staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2107, under 10). [...] Precedent has it that, at the discretion of the executive head, a temporary appointment may be extended or converted to a fixed-term appointment, but it does not carry any expectation of, nor imply any right to, such extension or conversion and shall, unless extended or converted, expire according to its terms, without notice or indemnity (see, in particular, Judgment 1560, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560, 2107
Keywords:
contract; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; non-retroactivity; notice; right; short-term; successive contracts; terminal entitlements;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant worked, from 1993 to 2000, under a series of short-term contracts of varying durations. "[A]ppointments extended by the organization to prospective employees and accepted by the latter freely, are policy matters over which the Tribunal will not interfere."
Keywords:
acceptance; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; intention of parties; judicial review; offer; short-term; successive contracts;
Judgment 2194
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
"The right to equal treatment requires that situations which are the same or similar be governed by the same rules and that dissimilar situations be governed by rules that take account of the dissimilarity. The authority, which is required to give equal treatment to dissimilar situations, has a broad discretion in adopting rules that take into account that dissimilarity (see Judgment 1990, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990
Keywords:
definition; difference; discretion; equal treatment; right; written rule;
Judgment 2193
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependent on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. "The complainant submits that, since the Director-General is entitled to modify or create exceptions to the application of the Staff Rules, he could and ought to have made an exception in the present case or amended the disputed text in order to protect the rights of homosexuals. [...] However, irrespective of the validity of the arguments put forward in urging the Director-General to take individual choices into account in the context of a culture of tolerance compatible with changing moral beliefs, the Director-General cannot be compelled to resort to what is merely an option open to him under certain clearly defined circumstances, since exercising that option is entirely a matter of discretion."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; contract; dependant; discretion; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2191
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Organisations must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting" a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed.
Keywords:
discretion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The organization has a discretion to assess, in the context of its relations with a Member State, which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether it is appropriate to lift the immunity from legal process of its employees (see in this respect Judgments 933 and 1543)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 933, 1543
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; member state; organisation; privileges and immunities; tribunal; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2183
94th Session, 2003
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"The principle of the confidentiality of private messages stored in a professional e-mail account must be observed [...] In the event that access to an e-mail account becomes necessary for reasons of urgency or because of the prolonged absence of the account holder, it must be possible for organisations to open the account using appropriate technical safeguards. That state of necessity, justifying access to data which may be confidential, must be assessed with the utmost care."
Keywords:
discretion; force majeure; general principle; leave; official; organisation; organisation's duties; safeguard;
Judgment 2173
94th Session, 2003
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant wants to be promoted to the "exceptional advancement grade" of his career path. "Although the complainant's competence and standard of work were acknowledged and his appraisal reports were consistently good, those responsible in his division and sector did not see fit to propose him for exceptional advancement, which is granted to very few. Such promotion being discretionary, the organization may refuse it without incurring censure unless the refusal was based on mistakes of fact or of law [...] or on an abuse of authority [...] or unless essential facts were overlooked or blatantly wrong conclusions drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; promotion; satisfactory service;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. 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. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] 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 Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
< 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, 29, 30, 31 | next >
|
