Measure of distraint (137,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Measure of distraint
Total judgments found: 4

• Judgment 3958

  
  125th Session, 2018
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [T]he decision regarding the house ban, as well as the suspension decision, even if they are essentially interim measures to safeguard the investigation, have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered mere steps to the final decision of the proceeding. As such, the request for review of these decisions was receivable [...].

  Keywords:

  decision; measure of distraint; step in the procedure; suspension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2773

  
  106th Session, 2009
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  "Nor has the Tribunal found any evidence on file to suggest that the Organization displayed prejudice against the complainant. The circumstance which the complainant cites in support of this contention, namely that he was suspended from his duties on the basis of Staff Rules, cannot be construed in that way, because such a suspension is only an interim, precautionary measure which does not at all prejudge the outcome of the proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 1927, under 5, and 2365, under 4(a))."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365
  

  Keywords:

  bias; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; measure of distraint; organisation's duties; provisional measures; staff regulations and rules; suspension; suspensive action;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2365

  
  97th Session, 2004
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4(a)

  Extract:

  "The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director-General. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 671

  
  56th Session, 1985
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Summary

  Extract:

  The complainant was the second signatory of bank checks for amounts in excess of actual expenditure. Criminal proceedings were introduced against the first signatory. A sum representing part of the compensation payable to the complainant was distraint. The complainant seeks payment of that amount. The Tribunal observes that appeal against the decision was not lodged within the time limit and that the decision can no longer be challenged. However, because the decision is a "measure of distraint", it remains open to the complainant to request a review on the basis of a change of the position in law or in fact.

  Keywords:

  deduction; measure of distraint; receivability of the complaint; time bar;