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 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The power to suspend is enlivened when the Secretary-General considers, in the specified circumstances, that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. The power is founded on the opinion of the Secretary-General on the question of prejudice.
When the complainant was suspended with pay by memorandum dated 4 May 2018, the approach of the Secretary-General was, on its face, orthodox and in conformity with Staff Rule 29. First the Secretary-General said that a sanction was being considered and identified it as summary dismissal. Secondly the Secretary-General addressed the question of prejudice and gave a rational, albeit brief, explanation why the interests of the service may be prejudiced if the complainant continued in service.
The grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 2365, consideration 4(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
discretion; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Judgment 4452
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to suspend him with pay and then without pay during the disciplinary procedure for misconduct as well as the appointment of a colleague to what he describes as his “job and functions”.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The power to suspend is enlivened when the Secretary-General considers, in the specified circumstances, that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. The power is founded on the opinion of the Secretary-General on the question of prejudice. It is tolerably clear that a decision to suspend without salary when there might be summary dismissal, is linked to the power to make the summary dismissal retroactive to the date of suspension. The rationale appears to be that if retroactive summary dismissal is the ultimate outcome, circumstances should not be created where the suspended official has been paid but for a period when he was not in employment, at least notionally, and recovery of that payment may be problematic.
When the complainant was suspended with pay […], the approach of the Secretary-General was, on its face, quite orthodox and in conformity with Staff Rule 29. First, the Secretary-General said that a sanction was being considered and identified it as summary dismissal. Notwithstanding, a decision was not then made though it could have been, to suspend the complainant without pay. Secondly the Secretary-General addressed the question of prejudice and gave a rational explanation why the interests of the service may be prejudiced if the complainant continued in service.
Keywords:
discretion; suspension; suspension without pay;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In respect of its consideration of the various pleas, the Tribunal wishes to begin by pointing out that, with regard to decisions to transfer, appoint, reassign or promote an international civil servant or to refuse to select her or him for a vacant post, it considers, in accordance with established case law, that such decisions lie within the discretion of the competent authority of the organisation concerned and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, such a decision 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. Moreover, the Tribunal will be especially wary in reviewing a transfer since it may not replace the employer’s rating of the official with its own (see, inter alia, Judgments 1556, consideration 5, and 4408, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1556, 4408
Keywords:
discretion; role of the tribunal; transfer;
Judgment 4450
133rd Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of her probationary period for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, international organizations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisals. Therefore, such decisions are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will intervene only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 4010, consideration 5, 4062, consideration 6, 4170, consideration 9, and 4276, consideration 7). With specific regard to probationary periods, the Tribunal has said that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position, and, accordingly, a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organization’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerned with probationary matters. In the course of making this assessment, an organization must establish clear objectives, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance in a timely manner, so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning where continued employment is in jeopardy. Moreover, a probationer is entitled to have objectives set in advance (see Judgment 4282, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4010, 4062, 4170, 4276, 4282
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; probationary period; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant contends that the objectives were fully achieved, but this is her personal opinion and it cannot substitute the one expressed by her supervisors, who are expressly qualified to make such assessments. Nor shall the Tribunal substitute its own opinion to a discretionary decision, unless it reveals flaws in fact or law that in the present case are not demonstrated.
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4444
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is recalled that consistent precedent has it that such decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal must determine whether a decision taken by virtue of a discretionary authority was taken with authority, is in regular form, whether the correct procedure has been followed and, as regards its legality under the organisation’s own rules, whether the Administration’s decision was based on an error of law or fact, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or again, whether conclusions which are clearly false have been drawn from the documents in the dossier, or finally, whether there has been a misuse of authority (see Judgment 3297, consideration 8).
Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4065, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 4065
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[C]onsistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; rests upon a mistake of fact or law or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4084, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4084
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; transfer;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or 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. This formulation is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature (see, for example, Judgment 4023, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3537, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4405
132nd Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal draws attention to its settled case law under which decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4180
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In exercising the discretionary authority conferred by this provision, the Registrar must comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the case law.
Keywords:
discretion;
Judgment 4400
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.
Consideration 29
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, for example, Judgments 3640, consideration 29, 3927, consideration 13, and 3944, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Given the inaccuracy in the reasons given for not promoting the complainant, which also means that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary manner, the […] impugned decision is flawed and will be set aside (see, for example, Judgment 3647, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3647
Keywords:
decision quashed; discretion; mistake of fact; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s role in cases which challenge a non-promotion decision is a limited one. Staff members of an international organization do not have an automatic right to promotion. It is established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority. Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision. The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 4066, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4066
Keywords:
discretion; promotion;
Judgment 4389
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse in full the costs he incurred in the internal appeal proceedings.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well settled in the case law that the Tribunal will only set aside a discretionary decision if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 1969, consideration 7, 2896, consideration 7, and 3317, consideration 5). Thus, to successfully impugn a discretionary decision, a complainant must demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1969, 2896, 3317
Keywords:
discretion;
Judgment 4370
131st Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to retire him at the end of the month in which he reached the age of 62, even though he had not completed the five years of contributions required for the payment of a retirement pension by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t should be borne in mind that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of the organisation exercises wide discretion and which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3884, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3884
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interests of the service with a view, in particular, to holding a new competition on different terms if need be (see, for example, Judgments 791, consideration 4, 1223, consideration 31, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, 3647, consideration 9, 3920, consideration 18, 4216, consideration 3, or 4283, consideration 2).
However, such a decision can never be arbitrary. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the condition relating to the interests of the organisation required under the case law in question is actually met and whether the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason (see, in particular, Judgments 3647, consideration 9, and 3920, consideration 18, cited above).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647, 3920, 4216, 4383
Keywords:
competition; discretion;
Judgment 4363
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It is convenient to recall that in Judgment 3948, consideration 2, where a decision not to renew a contract was challenged, the Tribunal stated that its scope of review is limited as an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment and that the exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization and a decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3948
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4316
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of fixed “bridging days” to balance the number of public holidays at the different places of employment.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The fact that some staff were unhappy with the choice does not mean that the change was unlawful and that the previous rules could not be changed. The Tribunal recognizes that it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests (see Judgment 2587, under 10). The basic idea underlying the complaints, that the only possible choice was the most favorable for the staff, is wrong as it denies the President’s discretion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2587
Keywords:
discretion;
Consideration 17
Extract:
A decision taken in the exercise of this broad discretion may only be quashed for unlawfulness for breach of general principles of law, of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is unquestionably unreasonable. “It must be recalled that the Tribunal is not competent to rule on the merits of [the Organisation]’s choices in respect of its staff management, for they form part of the general employment policy that an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests” (see Judgments 3827, under 7, 3225, under 6, and 2061, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2061, 3225, 3827
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4314
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that the process of classifying posts in international organisations constitutes an act of technical evaluation, and, accordingly, it is not for the Tribunal to weigh, compare and/or determine the relative merits of ratings which are thereby accorded. The Tribunal has consistently stated, for example in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, that the grounds for reviewing the classification of a post are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts. This is because the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake this process of evaluation. The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation, or the person acting on her or his behalf (see also Judgments 4024, consideration 3, 4164, consideration 4, 4186, consideration 6, and 4193, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 4024, 4164, 4186, 4193
Keywords:
discretion; post classification;
Judgment 4312
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The classification of posts necessarily involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake that evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). That classification is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation or the person acting on her or his behalf (see, for example, Judgments 3082, consideration 20, 4040, consideration 3, and 4186, consideration 6). That is why it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the grounds for reviewing the classification of a post are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4040, 4186
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4301
130th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to withdraw a vacancy notice and re-advertise it, and the ad interim appointment of a colleague in the meantime.
Consideration 5
Extract:
A decision concerning the advertising of a position, such as the two decisions presently contested by the complainant, is discretionary and may only be set aside if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it was based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2850, 2861, 3299
Keywords:
discretion; vacancy notice;
Judgment 4290
130th Session, 2020
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General not to promote her in the 2018 performance-based promotion exercise.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 4066, consideration 3, that its case law does not guarantee to staff members of an international organization an automatic right to promotion (see Judgment 3495, under 11). It is also well established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. For this reason, such decisions are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see also Judgment 2835, under 5). Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision (see Judgment 1827, under 6). The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 1109, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1827, 2835, 3495, 4066
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
< 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 >
|
