|
|
 |
|
|
Mistake of law (567,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of law
Total judgments found: 43
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant’s personnel file.
Keywords:
administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;
Judgment 4736
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 15
Extract:
By imposing a disciplinary measure of summary dismissal without termination indemnities on the complainant, the Secretary General therefore breached the provisions of aforementioned Staff Rule 12.1.3(1)(i) and thereby committed an error of law. The Tribunal observes that it is even possible to consider that this measure, insofar as it amounts in practice to a summary dismissal for mere misconduct, is not among those listed in Staff Rule 12.1.3(1) and that the Secretary General therefore breached the principle nulla poena sine lege, applicable in disciplinary matters, according to which an authority cannot lawfully impose a sanction other than those provided for in the organisation’s staff rules and regulations (see, in particular, Judgment 757, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 757
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mistake of law;
Judgment 4569
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant simply challenges the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in the two judgments in question, as he has already done in his application for review of Judgment 4370. However, these may not be challenged in an application for review (see Judgment 4440, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370, 4440
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4440
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[L]es appréciations d’ordre juridique que le Tribunal porte dans un jugement ne sauraient être utilement critiquées dans le cadre d’un recours en révision (voir le jugement 3984, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4378
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close after an initial review and without conducting a formal investigation his harassment complaint against the WHO Internal Oversight Services.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is understandable why the complainant’s formal harassment complaint was directed against IOS. He was not necessarily informed who from that department was involved in his case. The fact that the complainant’s harassment complaint was directed against the entire IOS did not absolve WHO from investigating (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14; see also Judgment 4207, consideration 15), as the complaint could readily be construed as targeting the persons within IOS who had dealt with the complainant’s case, even if their identity was known only to the Administration. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that paragraph 3.1.4 of the WHO Policy provides that “[h]arassment may involve a group”. Finally, WHO cannot ignore that the case law of the Tribunal recognizes institutional harassment (see Judgments 3250, 4111, 4243 and 4345) and that it should take this into account when interpreting its own rules. Accordingly, the external reviewer’s finding that the complainant’s harassment complaint was beyond the scope of the WHO Policy and was, therefore, irreceivable is an error of law. However, this error of law does not have any impact on the outcome of the present complaint, as the external reviewer also conducted an initial review of the substance of the complainant’s harassment complaint, as provided in the WHO Policy.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3347, 4111, 4207, 4243, 4345
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; mistake of law;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Appeal Board’s approach to the substance of the complainant’s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board’s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant’s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
Judgment 4129
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he plea of a mistake of law is not an admissible ground for review (see Judgment 1529, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 3987
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The gravamen of the application for review involves a contention that the Tribunal disregarded the fundamental facts of the case and, in the result, the amount ordered by way of damages was far too low. Indeed it is contended that the “complainant felt such paltry amounts to be rather insulting rather than compensatory”. But in substance, the complainant is simply challenging the assessment by the Tribunal of the damages which should be awarded, and that matter is res judicata unless an error is established of the type which can found a review. No such error is identified.
Keywords:
mistake of law;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that “[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board” by the complainant.
In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure before the tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3905
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
It is evident that, in its report of 22 February 2016, the Appeals Board viewed the notification of the abolition of the complainant’s position and the termination of his appointment in the letter of 16 June as the communication of a single decision. This was a fundamental error of law. Decisions to abolish a post and terminate an appointment are separate and distinct decisions.
Keywords:
abolition of post; internal appeals body; mistake of law; termination of employment;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
"It follows from the JAB’s failure to obtain and consider evidence central to the claim that its conclusion and recommendation are tainted by an error of law. As the Director General adopted the conclusion and accepted the recommendation, his decision is also tainted by an error of law (see Judgment 2742, under 40)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742
Keywords:
discretion; disregard of essential fact; final decision; mistake of law;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
When the Tribunal is seised of a complaint against a disciplinary penalty, it must quash the penalty if it is based on an error of fact or of law, overlooked some essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 2262, under 2, and 2365, under 4(a) in fine).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2262, 2365
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; mistake of law; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2393
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The general principles also allow that a mistake as to a candidate’s qualifications or experience may constitute a mistake of fact or result in some material fact being overlooked. It is this consideration that is invoked by the complainant’s contentions that he had greater experience and skills than the successful candidate, and that the interview panel and the FAO were mistaken as to his management skills. However, and as held in Judgment 1827, the selection of candidates necessarily “requires a high degree of judgment” with which the Tribunal will interfere only if a serious defect is demonstrated. And as was also held in that judgment, a defect of that kind is not established merely by asserting that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; selection procedure;
Judgment 2029
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considérant 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1878
87th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that lack of proportionality is an error of law: see Judgments 203 [...], 1070 [...] and 1271 [...]. According to the Tribunal's jurisprudence, a sanction out of porportion to the subjective and objective nature of the offence is a mistake of law and since the decision is flawed it must be quashed. The complainant refers to cases where the material or moral interests of an international organisation were jeopardised and the Tribunal confirmed decisions of summary dismissal for serious misconduct: see Judgments 63 [...], 159 [...] and 969 [...]. Insulting a colleague in the privacy of his office and then offering apologies that evening and the next morning, which were accepted in writing, does not constitute serious misconduct. Her actions did not jeopardise the material or moral interests of the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 63, 159, 203, 969, 1070, 1271
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mistake of law; proportionality; serious misconduct;
Judgment 1729
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"While the Tribunal will not review the substance of discretionary administrative decisions [...] it does have the power to review the process leading to such decisions and to look into questions such as abuse of authority, incomplete consideration of the facts or failure to respect elementary principles of justice: see Judgment 1131 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131
Keywords:
abuse of power; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; general principle; judicial review; mistake of law; misuse of authority;
Judgment 1529
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
