Discretion (547, 548, 549, 550, 551,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Discretion
Total judgments found: 599
< 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 | next >
Judgment 1230
74th Session, 1993
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Agency granted the complainant only a short contract renewal, refusing to renew the contract until the date of his retirement. According to the defendant, this decision was based on information in its files which indicated that the complainant wasn't available after a certain date. Now it has been established that the complainant said he would be available as long as the Agency wished. "A decision by an international organization to grant only a short extension of appointment or none at all, though it is discretionary, must still be based on correct findings of fact."
Keywords:
contract; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; organisation;
Judgment 1226
74th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3, 7 and 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge decisions by the Director-General confirming the abolition of free after-service medical cover. They allege breach of acquired rights and contend that the FAO's financial position did not warrant such measures. "The Tribunal will not compare the options open to the FAO in the area of financial policy since it might ignore the realities that the FAO has to take into account. All the Tribunal need do is acknowledge that it was because of the financial plight of the scheme and its own that the organization decided to do away with free coverage for pensioners. The change does cause the complainants detriment. [...] But that alone does not amount to breach of any acquired right. First, the effect of the change was to put all fao pensioners on a par. [...] Secondly, there were transitional measures to lighten the impact of the change [...]. Since the change was made by way of rules, and because of the reasons for it, the complainants have suffered no breach of any acquired right despite the injury to their interests."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; discretion; grounds; health insurance; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical expenses; organisation's interest; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"True, a staff member may not assert any right to promotion and the choice of the successful applicant is at the discretion of the administration, which alone may appraise the organisation's interests. Yet the exercise of discretion is subject to restrictions in law and the Tribunal will to that extent review the decision: see for example Judgment 1016 [...]. So the staff member has undeniably the right to file an internal appeal or a complaint with the Tribunal if he believes that the appointment to a vacancy he has applied for is improper."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; cause of action; competition; complaint; discretion; internal candidate; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; promotion; receivability of the complaint; refusal; right; vacancy notice;
Consideration 30
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, challenges the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post. He alleges that the recruitment procedure was unlawful. "The Tribunal will not interfere in drafting a notice of vacancy or comparing candidates who respond to the notice. But for Eurocontrol to open a competition for serving officials and then change the terms of recruitment sub rosa so as to deny them any real chance of success was in breach of the duty of trust and fairness the organisation owes its staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; discretion; due process; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; organisation's duties; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant seeks the redefinition of her duties and, subsidiarily, transfer or secondment. "The administration never forced the complainant to perform duties other than those in the description of her post. It is bound neither to amend the duties of staff to suit their own wishes nor [...] to grant their applications for transfer, provided that its decisions are not prompted by considerations irrelevant to its own interests."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; assignment; discretion; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; post description; request by a party; request for transfer; secondment;
Judgment 1217
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant objects to CERN's refusal to change his home from that of which he is a citizen to another country. "The original determination of the home station on recruitment and any later change are incontrovertibly at the discretion of CERN, which has to give weight to the various criteria the Staff Regulations set. For the sake of sound management [...] the organization may set guidelines on the matter. So there can be no objection to its consistent policy of determining the staff member's home, barring evidence to the contrary, in his own country and allowing later change to some other country only where some change in circumstances so warrants."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; criteria; decision; discretion; home; home leave; judicial review; nationality; organisation's interest; place of origin; refusal;
Judgment 1204
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainants object to a decision denying them so-called "out-of-career" promotions. They submit that the original decisions were taken for an unlawful reason of principle and that the organization later confirmed the decisions on quite different grounds. The organization says it merely exercised the discretion inherent in managerial prerogative and did not alter the original reasons but merely added to them. "Although the competent authority has discretion to grant or refuse the promotion of staff who qualify under the material rules, it must abide by the rules, and whatever decisions it takes will be subject to judicial review [...] so as to determine whether they pass muster the rules have to be known to everyone and an organisation may not go beyond the duly published texts and resort to secret provisions that change the thrust of the ones it intended to treat as binding. Before it takes its discretionary decision, it must compare the merits of all staff who qualify under the rules [...] CERN committed two mistakes of law. One was to apply to the complainants rules that had never been published and that it regarded as binding. The other was to defend its position ex post facto by saying that its reasons for rejecting the complainants' claims were connected with their performance, though there is no evidence of any comparative and analytical assessment of the kind that international officials are entitled to."
Keywords:
applicable law; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; judicial review; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; publication; refusal;
Judgment 1199
73rd Session, 1992
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants plead breach of their acquired rights concerning pay. "In this case the changes were made because of shifts in economic trends and tax rules in the United States [...] The competent authorities [...] decided in the exercise of their discretion to keep the link with the civil service of the member State - the United States - that is customarily the 'comparator' in determining pay in the international civil service. Their solution is not intrinsically unlawful."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 832
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; discretion; domestic law; general principle; noblemaire principle; reckoning; salary; scale;
Judgment 1185
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1185, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 1183
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is to find out whether a probationer has the mettle to make a satisfactory career in the organization. The competent authority will determine [...] whether or not to confirm the appointment and must be allowed the utmost measure of discretion in deciding whether someone [...] shows, not just the professional qualifications, but also the personal attributes for the particular post in which he is to be working. Only where the Tribunal finds the most serious or glaring flaw in the exercise of the Director-General's discretion will it interfere."
Keywords:
career; discretion; flaw; judicial review; post; probationary period; purpose; qualifications;
Judgment 1179
73rd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Transfer is at the discretion of the Director General [...]. The complainant wants the Tribunal to order the organization to consider his application for transfer to a suitable post. That is not the sort of claim the Tribunal is competent to grant, and it is therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; request for transfer;
Judgment 1177
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"When the Director-General's decision is not based on the results of an examination marked by an independent body, he has a wide degree of discretion in making an appointment and granting promotion. Though he is not bound by any recommendation from an advisory body, his authority does not make referral to such a body pointless. A selection body relieves him of the burden of carrying out an assessment himself. It ensures that all applications for appointment or promotion, whatever their source, shall be examined impartially and on the merits. And its report enables the Tribunal to appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw."
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; competition; discretion; further submissions; impartiality; interlocutory order; judicial review; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; report;
Judgment 1175
73rd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the case law makes plain - for example, judgments 736 [...] and 1161 [...] - a decision not to confirm a probationer's appointment is a matter of discretion for the President. Although the Tribunal may review the lawfulness of dismissal of a probationer, the nature of the decision is such that its power of review is limited. It will set aside the decision only if there was a mistake of fact or law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 736, 1161
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; contract; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is to find out whether a probationer has the mettle to make a satisfactory career in the organisation. The competent authority will determine on the evidence before it, and possibly after extension of the probation as in the present case where doubt still lingers, whether to dismiss the official or to confirm the appointment. It must indeed be allowed the widest measure of discretion in determining whether someone it has recruited is suitable."
Keywords:
career; discretion; extension of contract; probationary period; qualifications; termination of employment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The organisation is free to set quotas for the output of patent examiners. The complainant has failed to offer any evidence to suggest that the quotas the organisation set for him were in any way unreasonable or that, even when he attained them, the evenness of his output was such as the organisation was entitled to expect of him. In the circumstances it is not proven that the decision not to confirm his appointment shows any [...] fatal flaws".
Keywords:
discretion; evidence; output; qualifications; reckoning; staff member's duties; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1161
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As the case law makes plain - for example, Judgments 687 [...] and 736 [...] - a decision not to confirm a probationer's appointment is a matter of discretion for the [executive head] and the Tribunal will not substitute its own judgment for the organisation's in matters that require such exercise of discretion. Although the Tribunal may review the lawfulness of dismissal of a probationer, the nature of the decision is such that its power of review is limited. It will set aside the decision only if there was a mistake of fact or law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 687, 736
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is to find out whether a probationer has the mettle to make a satisfactory career in the Organisation. The competent authority will determine on the evidence before it, and possibly after extension of the probation as in the present case where doubt still lingers, whether to dismiss the official or to confirm the appointment. It must indeed be allowed the widest measure of discretion in determining whether someone it has recruited shows the highest level of qualifications required for a post in the particular field in which he is to be working."
Keywords:
discretion; extension of contract; probationary period; qualifications; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal is satisfied that in this case the President of the Office made proper exercise of the wide discretion he enjoys under Article 13(2) [of the Service Regulations] to decline, on the grounds of poor performance, to confirm the complainant's appointment."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13(2) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1159
72nd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
WHO Staff Rule 1050.2.3 "distinguishes between holders of a career-service appointment and temporary staff. Whereas the former 'shall be given priorities', the Director-General enjoys discretion to 'establish priority' among the latter. He was therefore under no obligation to give any particular priority to the holder of a temporary appointment like the complainant."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1050.2.3
Keywords:
career; contract; discretion; fixed-term; organisation's duties; priority;
Judgment 1153
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the case law makes plain - for example, Judgments 687 [...] and 736 [...] - a decision not to confirm a probationer's appointment is a matter of discretion [...] and the Tribunal will not substitute its own judgment for the organisation's in matters that require such exercise of discretion. [...] Although the Tribunal may review the lawfulness of the dismissal, the nature of the decision is such that its power of review is limited. It will set aside the decision only if there was a mistake of fact or law".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 687, 736
Keywords:
case law; discretion; judicial review; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 1152
72nd Session, 1992
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As [the Tribunal] has said many times, grading requires close familiarity with the conditions in which the staff member works. [...] The decision is, in other words, a discretionary one. [...] Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment or direct that a new one be made unless it is satisfied on the evidence that there is a fatal flaw".
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; post; post classification;
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 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant objects to the Sickness Fund's refusal to refund the costs of a product which her doctor prescribed and which she bought in a pharmacy. The Tribunal holds that the fact "that a product has been bought in a pharmacy [is immaterial] since a pharmacy may sell many health items that are not products within the meaning of the rule. Likewise a doctor's prescription is no criterion since according to the rule it is a condition of refund over and above the objective effects of the product."
Keywords:
discretion; freedom to choose practitioner; health insurance; medical expenses;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant is challenging [the organisation's] Sickness Fund's refusal to refund the cost of an item classified as "phytotherapy". The Tribunal holds that "under Article 14 the administration may determine whether an item that a fund member wants to have refunded is a 'pharmaceutical product' within the meaning of the rule. [...] That is a matter of medical opinion and among the relevant criteria are the preventive or therapeutic efficacy of the product, scientific inquiry into the effects it has, and any risks involved in using it. So decisions by public health bodies are highly relevant, particularly for an international fund like [the organisation's] that covers more than one country and allows free choice of practitioner."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 14 OF RULE 10
Keywords:
discretion; domestic law; freedom to choose practitioner; health insurance; insurance benefits; medical expenses;
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant objects to the refusal by Eurocontrol's Sickness Fund of her claim to the refund of costs incurred for treatment. The organisation notified this decision to her by an office memorandum and it constituted an individual decision. "The organisation [...] has wide discretion in the matter and may exercise it as it sees fit for the purpose of ensuring the efficiency and financial soundness of its fund. There is more than one legal procedure it may resort to. It may adopt general rules [...] or else it may take individual decisions on particular cases."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; discretion; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses;
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant objects to the Sickness Fund's refusal to refund the costs of a given item. "Eurocontrol has [...] discretion under Article 24, which empowers the fund to refuse refund of the costs of treatment which the medical officer deems to be 'non-functional, superfluous or unnecessary'. As was said in Judgment 1088, [article] 24 covers all sorts of 'treatments', however the term 'pharmaceutical product' in [article] 14 is to be construed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 14 AND 24 OF RULE 10
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1088
Keywords:
definition; discretion; health insurance; insurance; limits; medical consultant; medical expenses; refund; refusal;
Judgment 1144
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As was said in Judgment 806 [...], a decision on a staff report, being a discretionary one, may be set aside only on limited grounds such as a procedural or formal flaw, a mistake of fact or of law, the overlooking of some material fact, abuse of authority or the drawing of a mistaken conclusion from the evidence. That judgment goes on to explain that the review will be more limited because at the EPO there is a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations allow the staff member to appeal to a joint committee made up of people who are closely familiar with the running of the Office."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; rebuttal;
< 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 | next >
|
