Judgment No. 4701
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to defer the review of his contract’s extension.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
extension of contract; complaint dismissed
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
[T]he complainant submitted a letter requesting the recusal of two of the judges sitting on the panel this session deciding the present case and three other complaints filed by him. His grounds for the recusal are that the judges’ recurring participation in a succession of cases involving him and the uniformity of their orders dismissing all of his complaints raise substantial concerns about the right to a fair trial and their impartiality. Additionally, the complainant requests that the pending complaints be heard by a panel of judges without prior involvement in any of his cases, and that another judge who assumes the President’s responsibilities be appointed. The complainant has sought the recusal of the two judges in a previous case, and his application was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 4520, consideration 1.
The principle of impartiality is an inherent element of the right to a fair trial, which is central to the operation of the Tribunal. As the Tribunal’s well-established case law states, ordinarily, except in cases of necessity, a judge will not be involved in adjudicating a case if there is a reasonable apprehension that she or he will not take a completely objective view owing to a risk of a lack of impartiality in her or his determination (see Judgments 4584, consideration 2, and 4520, consideration 1). A judge’s previous rulings or decisions alone is not a valid cause to challenge her or his impartiality, unless there is specific evidence suggestive of bias. Indeed, a judge has a duty to hear and determine a case allocated to her or him and a decision to recuse which was not properly founded would constitute a breach of that duty. The complainant primarily relies on his lack of success in previous proceedings and cannot present any circumstances which underpin a reasonable apprehension that the two judges might decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits. The mere fact that he was unsuccessful in previous proceedings before a panel in which the two judges participated does not warrant his application for the recusal of the two judges in subsequent proceedings involving him (see Judgments 4520, consideration 1, and 110, consideration 1). His request is therefore dismissed.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 110, 4520, 4584
Keywords
recusal of a judge
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the deferral decision is not a final administrative decision, as the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, for example, in Judgment 4404, consideration 3: “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be [challenged] as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16, confirmed by Judgments 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3700, consideration 14, 3876, consideration 5, and 3961, consideration 4).”
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4404
Keywords
step in the procedure
|
