ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Misuse of authority (571, 572, 927,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Misuse of authority
Total judgments found: 155

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >



  • Judgment 3193


    114th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "In a case where a complainant establishes that the disputed decision involved an abuse of power, the appropriate relief is often to set aside the decision. Indeed, such a decision should not stand in the face of the conclusion that it involved an abuse of power. [However], in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; moral injury; organisation's interest; post classification; reassignment; transfer;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;

    Considerations 10-12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal concludes that there was no evidentiary foundation for the HBA’s finding that the decisions were part of an approved plan.
    It is clear from [these] considerations that the reclassification was inextricably linked to the lateral reassignment request. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the reclassification and lateral reassignment decisions were not motivated by the needs of the Organization or the particular needs of NMH. Rather they were made to facilitate Mr A.’s personal interest in having his Assistant continue to work for him in his new position.
    [I]n the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed.

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3174


    114th Session, 2013
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the implicit rejection of his request for moral damages for alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2203, 2389, 3009

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; complaint dismissed; harassment; misuse of authority; moral injury;



  • Judgment 3172


    114th Session, 2013
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; abuse of power; breach; competence of tribunal; decision; discretion; evidence; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 3090


    112th Session, 2012
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[WIPO's] employment relationship with the complainant always rested on short-term contracts [...]. These contracts were systematically renewed without any notable breaks, with the result that [...] the complainant pursued a career in the Organization for more than seven years, i.e. until the expiry of [her last] contract. This long succession of short-term contracts gave rise to a legal relationship between the complainant and WIPO which was equivalent to that on which permanent staff members of an organisation may rely. In considering that the complainant belonged to the category of short-term employees to whom the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules do not apply and who do not enjoy legal protection comparable to that enjoyed by other staff members, the defendant failed to recognise the real nature of its legal relationship with the complainant. In so doing it committed an error of law and misused the rules governing short-term contracts."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; applicable law; career; contract; difference; extension of contract; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; temporary-indefinite; terms of appointment;



  • 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 3016


    111th Session, 2011
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Rejection of the complainant's request for reclassification of her post following a classification exercise.
    "The classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment unless certain grounds are established. Consistent precedent has it that 'the Tribunal will not interfere with the decision [...] unless it was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooks some material fact, or is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts' (see Judgment 1281, under 2)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; post; post classification; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3006


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if 'the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a 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 procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2956


    110th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Secretary of the Board of Appeal informed the complainant that the statement of intention to appeal he had sent to the Board was irreceivable but "this official plainly had no authority to take a decision in place of the Board itself".

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 2930


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2885


    108th Session, 2010
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "[I]t is convenient to note that there is a "misuse of authority where an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation's best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve" (see Judgment 1129, under 8). It may be accepted that it is a misuse of authority if a post is abolished in order to circumvent the relevant procedures applicable in the case of unsatisfactory performance. Even so, "misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it" (see Judgment 2116, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 2116

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; abuse of power; grounds; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; reassignment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 2869


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
    "[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 2868


    108th Session, 2010
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    "[W]ith respect to the Centre's assertion that this implementing measure was approved by the Council [...], the Tribunal observes that the adoption of a so-called "interpretative clarification" that purports to give the Executive Director the authority to take certain action cannot validate an earlier decision taken without the requisite authority."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; enforcement; executive body; interpretation; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 2865


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he date on which an employee takes up his or her duties depends on the number of staff the Organisation needs in order to function efficiently, which is a matter lying within its discretionary authority. Of course this does not exempt it from objectively weighing its own interests against those of the new recruit. In particular, it must not act arbitrarily or abuse its authority."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; appointment; bias; date; discretion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2861


    107th Session, 2009
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 86

    Extract:

    [T]here can be no doubt that the decision of 3 November 2006 was taken in retaliation for her having exercised her right to seek review of the decision of 25 October and for having pursued her claims of harassment. So much is clear both from the Secretary-General’s letter of 3 November 2006 and the submissions filed in WMO’s reply. Retaliation on this basis is no different from retaliation for pursuing an internal appeal which, as the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 2540, under 27, “is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; exemplary damages; harassment; internal appeal; misuse of authority; retaliation;



  • Judgment 2845


    107th Session, 2009
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    According to Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations, the Director General may, in the interest of the Union, extend the age limit in exceptional cases. The Tribunal considers that "the Director General's refusal to extend the complainant's service beyond the statutory age limit constitutes an act of retaliation [...]. The Director General used his discretionary authority for purposes other than those for which it was intended, thereby committing an abuse of authority. It follows that the impugned decision must be set aside."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; age limit; amendment to the rules; career; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2803


    106th Session, 2009
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that, according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization's interests."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 476

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; transfer;



  • Judgment 2752


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
    'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
    In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 6

    Extract:

    "Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
    [T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; breach; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; judicial review; language; misuse of authority; official; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; settlement out of court;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A] claim may be made and pursued against an organisation if its conduct in proceedings before an internal appeals body or this Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process or a perversion of the right of reply."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; conduct; iloat; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; right;



  • Judgment 2728


    105th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the Director-General's decision not to extend his appointment is unlawful. "There is no material to support a finding of bias or other abuse of discretion. Certainly, none is to be discerned from the fact that the complainant's former post has not yet been opened to competition."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; competition; contract; decision; discretion; evidence; executive head; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 2594


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The case law is [...] clear that to substantiate a plea of abuse of power, or of misuse of authority, the complainant “must be able to identify the improper purposes for which the authority [...] has been exercised” (see Judgment 2104).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top