Grounds (34,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Grounds
Total judgments found: 201
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 4782
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Regarding the principles which govern an application for the review of a judgment, the Tribunal case law states that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea, on the other hand, afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
Keywords:
grounds; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4321
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s assertion the EPO breached its duty of care owed to her is unsubstantiated. The complainant was given six months’ notice of the termination of her contract; the termination of the contract occurred at the contractually agreed time, as stated in her last extension; and the complainant received valid reasons for the decision.
Keywords:
grounds; termination of employment;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 3983
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 3508, 3628, 3710, 3711, 3712, 3778, 3779 and 3780.
Consideration 1
Extract:
Under Article VI of its Statute the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea, on the other hand, afford no grounds for review (see Judgment 3633, under 3, and the case law cited therein). The recent explicit recognition in the Tribunal’s Statute of the right to apply for a review has not altered the limits established in the Tribunal’s case law as to the grounds on which such applications can be admitted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3633
Keywords:
application for review; grounds;
Judgment 3970
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to prolong his service beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Neither of the grounds underlying the decisions of the President of the Office can be accepted as a legitimate justification for the rejection of the complainant’s request for his service to be prolonged. This rejection was therefore tainted by an obvious error of judgement.
The Tribunal notes that this flaw is particularly unacceptable given that the Selection Committee had issued a proposal favourable to the complainant’s request. That proposal was based on sound reasoning and emphasised, in addition to the complainant’s profound competence, the service’s interest in retaining him in view of the particular need of the boards of appeal for expertise in his specific field. Considering that proposal, the President ought to have at least provided adequate justification for his own position.
Keywords:
age limit; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; retirement;
Judgment 3939
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 extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t is clear from the explanations supplied by UNESCO in its written submissions to the Appeals Board and in those filed with the Tribunal that the complainant’s argument regarding his term of office was in fact taken into account by the Director-General when assessing the merits of his request. [...]
In addition, this decision will not be censured for the inadequacy of its initial reasoning, since the Tribunal’s case law accepts that the reasons for an administrative decision may be supplied or supplemented a posteriori during appeal proceedings (see, in particular, Judgments 1817, under 6, 2194, under 7, or 3660, under 3). This was the case here, and the complainant is wrong to submit that when UNESCO subsequently provided explanations, it modified the original reasons for the contested decision, since it merely clarified them.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 2194, 3660
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; grounds; internal procedure;
Judgment 3616
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract and the refusal to grant her a termination indemnity.
Consideration 1
Extract:
First the EPO questions the receivability of the complaint. It holds that the complainant merely outlines the facts contained in her submissions to the IAC and does not enter any explicit plea.
This criticism will not be accepted. While the arguments of fact and of law of the complainant, who is not assisted by a representative, are rather succinct, they are sufficient to enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend with sufficient ease and clarity the complainant’s pleas (see Judgment 2264, under 3(e)), which culminate in the claim that the impugned decision should be set aside and that various indemnities should be paid.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264
Keywords:
complaint; grounds;
Judgment 3348
118th Session, 2014
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision to summarily dismiss him for misconduct (fraud).
Consideration 20
Extract:
"While the judgments of the Tribunal which establish the need for the ultimate decision-maker to explain why they refuse to follow a favourable recommendation of an internal appeal body (see for example Judgment 3161, consideration 7) do not address a case on all fours as the present, the principle nonetheless has application in this matter."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161
Keywords:
grounds; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 3333
118th Session, 2014
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The application for review is summarily dismissed as the complainant’s criticisms do not constitute grounds for review and cannot challenge the Tribunal’s appraisal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant’s criticisms [...] challenge the Tribunal’s appraisal in [...] Judgment 3134 of the merits of the complaint. Hence they do not constitute grounds for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3134
Keywords:
application for review; grounds;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is a general principle applied by this Tribunal that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see Judgment 2414, consideration 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414
Keywords:
contract; decision; fixed-term; grounds; patere legem; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 3208
115th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his contract following the abolition of his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042
Keywords:
bias; case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;
Judgment 3157
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
"[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3128
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant is [...] entitled to moral damages in the amount of 5,000 [Swiss] francs for the failure of the Executive Board to provide reasons for its decision to reject his appeal."
Keywords:
breach; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeal; moral injury; refusal;
Judgment 3126
113th Session, 2012
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
"This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
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 3073
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body's alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
