Refusal (631,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Refusal
Total judgments found: 229
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 1287
75th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The application to intervene having been filed after the Tribunal's session had started, it is "declared irreceivable under Article 17(4) of the Rules of court".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 17(4) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; iloat statute; intervention; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 1250
74th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct after refusing a transfer outside headquarters. He pleads that the FAO overlooked an essential fact by deciding to transfer him without taking account of his family situation. But he was allowed twelve months "to sort out the matter of his wife's career or obtain a suitable post at headquarters. He argues that he had more than 'ordinary family needs'. But there is nothing out of the ordinary about a situation where spouses each have a job at one and the same duty station, and neither wishes to give it up. [...] Such circumstances do not confer immunity against transfer on an international official. [...] The postponement of transfer by fourteen months is evidence of adequate consideration of his 'family situation and intersts'."
Keywords:
decision; disregard of essential fact; duty station; headquarters; judicial review; official; refusal; serious misconduct; staff member's interest; termination of employment; transfer;
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant's refusal of assignment to a post outside headquarters "was in breach of his obligation to the organization to comply with a transfer under Regulation 301.012. In view of the responsibilities of the post [to which he was assigned], that refusal impeded the effective operation of the organization [...] and amounted to misconduct."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF REGULATION 301.012
Keywords:
breach; complainant; definition; duty station; headquarters; organisation's interest; post; post description; refusal; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Consideration 20
Extract:
Had the complainant "made a bona fide challenge to the validity of transfer, that would have been a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance: for a precedent, see Judgment 392 [...], under 6. For family reasons the organization refrained for five months [...] from taking action on the decision to transfer the complainant. Thereafter he did not challenge the transfer but sought to circumvent or delay it by raising a series of questions and by evading a direct response."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 392
Keywords:
case law; complainant; decision; flaw; good faith; refusal; staff member's interest; transfer;
Considerations 22-23
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct after refusing transfer to a post outside headquarters. He alleges that summary dismissal was at odds with the principle of proportionality. The Tribunal holds that "dismissal was not a sudden decision. Furthermore, even after the proposal for dismissal he was given two opportunities to change his mind. [...] The decision to dismiss was a proper exercise of the discretion of the organization and did not infringe the principle of proportionality."
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; duty station; general principle; headquarters; organisation; proportionality; refusal; serious misconduct; termination of employment; transfer;
Judgment 1248
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "applies to the Tribunal for appointment of an expert to inquire into the scientific issues. His application is disallowed because the evidence he submits casts no doubt on the soundness of the medical opinion the organisation is relying on. For the same reason the Tribunal rejects his application for hearings."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; appraisal of evidence; expert inquiry; further submissions; medical opinion; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 1246
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has held on several occasions, for example in Judgment 1183, a decision by the Director-General not to confirm the appointment of a probationer 'is a discretionary one. Its power of review being limited, the Tribunal will set the decision aside only if it finds a mistake of fact or of law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or a clearly mistaken conclusion on the evidence, or neglect of an essential fact or abuse of authority.'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1183
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; probationary period; procedural flaw; refusal;
Judgment 1242
74th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the organization did not do its utmost to reinstate him in execution of Judgment 1154. WIPO's letter "does not substantiate the contention that it had. it simply conveys the Director General's decision 'not to extend [the complainant]'s appointment'. It says nothing of any attempts to find him a suitable position and thereby discharge its primary obligation under Judgment 1154. [...] The Director General had the duty to justify his decision by explaining why it was impossible to reinstate the complainant [...] only in its reply to this complaint does the organization maintain that 'there was no possibility of reinstating the complainant since there was no suitable post to which he could be appointed given his qualifications'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; reinstatement; reply; res judicata; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1241
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Pleading the importance of the case the complainants [...] apply for hearings, but the who believes that the Tribunal has before it full and accurate written statements of the issues of fact and law. The Tribunal takes the same view, especially since the case turns on matters of principle, not on the personal circumstances of this, that or the other litigant."
Keywords:
oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 1238
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal ordered the complainant's reinstatement in Judgment 999. But the Director-General decided that reinstatement was not in the interest of the organization and awarded him compensation. "To condemn someone to unemployment on account of a single negligent act unaccompanied by improper intention, and in circumstances that do not justify loss of confidence by the employer, is to demand a humanly impossible standard of performance by the employee and makes the right to reinstatement illusory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999
Keywords:
complainant; discretion; good faith; limits; negligence; organisation; organisation's interest; proportionality; refusal; reinstatement; right; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In the circumstances the refusal of reinstatement is not justified, and the fact that dismissal occurred over five years ago does not stand in the way of reinstatement, especially since the complainant was not responsible for any of the delay. He is accordingly entitled to reinstatement."
Keywords:
date; discretion; limits; mistake of fact; organisation's interest; refusal; reinstatement; right; termination of employment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Even if the Director-General has discretion to refuse reinstatement 'in the interest of the organization' he must exercise it fairly and reasonably after considering all the material facts. Here the facts were that the complainant had throughout had irreproachable appraisal reports. [...] Despite surveillance, without his knowledge, for six months prior to [the incident that led to his dismissal] no wrongdoing, negligence or irregularity on his part was discovered. [...] The Director-General has failed to take into consideration the above material facts and has erred in treating the complainant as guilty of a 'cover-up'. The refusal of reinstatement was thus not a proper exercise of whatever discretion he had in the matter."
Keywords:
complainant; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation; organisation's interest; performance report; refusal; reinstatement; right; termination of employment;
Judgment 1233
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal disallows the complainant's application for oral proceedings and for the hearing of at least one of her witnesses. Since it has full submissions before it and the witness she most wants it to hear has already supplied evidence in writing, hearings would serve no useful purpose."
Keywords:
oral proceedings; refusal; testimony; tribunal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant objects to UNESCO's holding up her dismissal indemnity and to the slowness of the compensation procedure, for which she claims damages. "The evidence does reveal unfortunate delay and remarkable dilatoriness in settling the case. But the organization may not be held liable for any particular negligence warranting an award of special damages under this head. The delay in sorting out the various issues of the case was due to a combination of several factors: procedural complications, the changing nature of the complainant's health, her living far from headquarters, and the need - for her own sake too - for many medical inquiries."
Keywords:
administrative delay; allowance; delay; lack of injury; misconduct; refusal; request by a party; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 1226
74th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainants apply for hearings. They have already had the opportunity of enlarging on their original submissions and on their rejoinders and of commenting on the ample evidence at their disposal. They sought leave to file submissions in answer to the surrejoinder and the disclosure of additional information and items. The interlocutory judgment granted the parties leave to file further submissions, which are now before the Tribunal. It therefore has all the material required for a final ruling. It dismisses the complainants' application as pointless."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; oral proceedings; refusal; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 33 to 36
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, is challenging the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post on the grounds that the decision was not substantiated. "Mutual trust between organisation and staff requires that in such circumstances the applicants should be properly informed of the decision and of the reasons for it. of course the content of the obligation [...] will depend on the sort of decision that has been taken. [...] The principle holds good: the organisation has a duty to state the reasons for the decision, that being an essential condition for proper defence of the official's rights. The staff member is therefore entitled to be given any information necessary for that purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
competition; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; promotion; purport; purpose; refusal; right to reply;
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;
Considerations 33-34
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. "To refuse promotion to an official who has duly applied for a post in answer to a notice of vacancy does amount to a 'decision adversely affecting' him [...] it is immaterial whether the decision is express [...] or implied in the preference for another applicant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; express decision; implied decision; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The complainant's appointment expired on 31 March 1992 and there was no reason why the organization should renew it. In the light of all the material circumstances, including her behaviour, the Tribunal disallows her claim to reinstatement."
Keywords:
complainant; conduct; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; refusal; reinstatement; request by a party; tribunal;
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 1213
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the decision to offer him an assignment to a lower grade than he wished and without the benefit of an indefinite appointment discriminated against him insofar as four officials appointed to the same post got the higher grade. "But none of the four is in like case. Either they have served longer than he or have different qualifications or have won a competition or have a much better record of performance. He adduces no evidence to show unlawful discrimination, and his plea is dismissed because it is devoid of merit."
Keywords:
assignment; decision; definition; duration of appointment; equal treatment; grade; 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;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants were refused the grant of a promotion. The impugned decisions are set aside and the complainants sent back to CERN for proper determination of their entitlement to promotion. They are claiming awards of damages. But "they fail to show any particular injury. If they get promotion, that, and the financial consequences, will afford them sufficient redress. If they are not promoted they will not have suffered any injury unless the new decisions are again unlawful. For the time being there is no actual injury and they have no right to compensation."
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; injury; lack of injury; promotion; refusal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1189
73rd Session, 1992
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant's request to have his designated home changed was turned down. He says that at the time of his recruitment there was an agreement with the administration to give him local status to avoid his running the risk of returning to his home country. "The argument fails. [...] The ILO could never have forced him to go [back to his home country], the taking of home leave being a right, not a duty".
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; home; home leave; refusal; right; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1177
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The defendant organisation has refused to produce certain documents pleading privilege. "An item that forms part of the decision may not be withheld from the Tribunal's scrutiny. [...] There shall therefore be further submissions to complete the case records, the Union being required to supply the [material documents]."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; refusal;
Judgment 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 1127
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not entertain the organisation's counterclaim to an award of costs against the complainant for abuse of process."
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; refusal; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Director General decided [...] not to allow his request for a permanent appointment on the grounds that he failed to meet the condition of seven years' satisfactory service. The complainant therefore has no right to any further extension".
Keywords:
condition; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; refusal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1113
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Even though [the] complaint is dismissed, "the Tribunal will not entertain CERN's counter-claim to an award of costs against [the complainant]."
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; refusal; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
