Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Judicial review
Total judgments found: 569
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 | next >
Judgment 4904
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to recognise that he was suffering from disability.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ccording to [the Tribunal's] case law, while it may not replace the medical findings of a body such as an invalidity board with its own assessment, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the board’s opinion shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4709, consideration 4, 4585, consideration 10, 4473, consideration 13, 4237, consideration 5, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709
Keywords:
invalidity; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4903
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to select him for a post of civil engineering technician.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see to that effect, in particular, Judgments 4625, consideration 3, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6). The Tribunal also recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment (see Judgments 4594, consideration 8, 4100, consideration 5, and 1595, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the appraisal report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4795, consideration 9, 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, or 3062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report; rating;
Judgment 4895
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the date of his promotion with retroactive effect and seeks promotion from an earlier date.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It should be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that international organizations enjoy wide discretion in relation to the promotion of staff and that it therefore exercises only a limited power of review in this area. The Tribunal will not interfere unless the impugned decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some 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 of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see, in particular, Judgments 4391, consideration 4, and 4290, consideration 8). Furthermore, the Tribunal has held that, since the assessment of a candidate for promotion involves a value judgement, it is not its role to interfere in this decision-making process unless it is seriously flawed (see, in particular, Judgments 4391, consideration 4, 4290, consideration 8, 4066, consideration 3, and 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 4066, 4290, 4391
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
applicable law; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; discretion; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; oral proceedings; order; promotion; retroactivity; right to be heard; work appraisal;
Judgment 4894
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
In its opinion of 1 December 2014, the Internal Appeals Committee firstly considered its role and secondly the merits of the complainant’s internal appeal. As to its role, it firstly noted, correctly, the limited role of the Tribunal in reviewing staff reports which are discretionary in nature. However, and importantly (a matter not understood by all internal appeals bodies), it said that an internal appeal body can “determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been made” citing Judgment 3161, consideration 6.
[…]
It is now convenient to consider the additional relief sought by the complainant. This includes that the text in his staff report for 2009 be amended by order of the Tribunal. But it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, this would be review of a report concerning the appraisal of the complainant some considerable time ago. There should be no such remittal though the complainant may gain some comfort from the conclusions of the Internal Appeals Committee (together with the observations of the Tribunal in this judgment), whose opinion should be included in his personnel file, if it is not already. It is also assumed that the present judgment will be included in his personnel file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4893
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
It is convenient to focus on the relief the complainant seeks. [...] His primary relief, as articulated in the rejoinder, is that the Tribunal “take a final decision on the merits”. The Tribunal takes this to include a reference to a claim made in the complaint form under the heading “[r]elief claimed”, that “the text [under] productivity in [the complainant’s] staff report [for] 2008-2009 should be amended by replacing the words [‘very good’] by [‘outstanding’], and the box marking should be amended correspondingly”. […]
However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, the complainant now eschews any desire to have the matter remitted. Accordingly, what remains is the impermissible request to the Tribunal to undertake the evaluation itself. This claim must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4892
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The second subheading referred to earlier is that “[t]he contested [staff report] is unjustified”. This is tantamount to an invitation to the Tribunal to enter the issue of whether a particular assessment in a performance appraisal report is appropriate. However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. But that is done only if a legal flaw is demonstrated. It is not in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Before considering the complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal finds it convenient to recall the following statement that it made in Judgment 4795, consideration 9, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
In other words, given that the staff report calls for a value judgement and the exercise of a discretionary power by the responsible bodies of the Organisation, the complainant must convince the Tribunal that the EPO breached a procedural requirement, that the staff report was made without authority or by an incompetent authority, or resulted from an abuse of authority, that a manifest error of law or fact was made, or that clearly wrong conclusions were reached from the record or from the overlook of material facts (see also Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4713, 4731, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4890
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Considerations 6 and 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has a limited power of review in situations involving performance appraisals of staff members. It is not the role of the Tribunal to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation in the assessment of the merits of a staff member. The Tribunal must rather recognize the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such assessment which involves a value judgement. In Judgment 4795, consideration 9, the Tribunal indeed recalled the following regarding its limited power of review in matters of staff appraisal:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
(See also, to the same effect, Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)
Moreover, in Judgment 4794, consideration 12, the Tribunal said the following in a situation where, like here, the complainant was asking that the assessment of his productivity be reviewed:
“Furthermore, aside from the fact that the Organisation has responded to the complainant’s criticisms factually, precisely and clearly in its submissions, the exercise that the complainant is asking the Tribunal to undertake with regard to the assessment of his productivity and his overall evaluation amounts in reality to a re-evaluation of his performance for 2016. However, that is a misconstruction of the Tribunal’s role, given the limited power of review the Tribunal may exercise in this matter according to its settled case law (see, for example, the aforementioned Judgment 4564, consideration 3, which was cited in the aforementioned Judgment 4637, consideration 13).”
[…] Reporting officers are not bound by ratings of previous staff reports and they must in all situations fairly and objectively assess the staff member’s productivity analysing each reporting period separately (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 6, and 1688, consideration 6). […]
[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to substitute its own assessment to the value judgement made by the competent bodies of the Organisation in their rating of the work productivity of the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4637, 4794, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4881
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his change of immediate supervisor.
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal provides, in paragraphs 1 and 5, that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of an official’s appointment and of the provisions of the staff regulations of the organisation that employs her or him. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, it may be inferred from these provisions that, for a complaint to be receivable, among other requirements, the staff member must have a cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 4337, consideration 6, 4296, consideration 6, 4145, consideration 5, or 3426, consideration 16).
A cause of action may be recognised only if the decision challenged by that official adversely affects her or him (see, in particular, Judgments 4322, considerations 8 and 9, 3198, consideration 13, 2952, consideration 3, and 1852, considerations 2 and 3).
However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant has no such cause of action in the present case.
It is well established in the case law that an international organisation has broad discretion over the organisation of its services and the Tribunal cannot judge the wisdom of measures that it deems necessary to adopt in this regard (see, for example, Judgments 3362, consideration 13, 2856, consideration 9, 2510, consideration 10, or 1131, consideration 5). As the Organization correctly points out, a decision which – like the decision challenged in the present case –determines the reporting line of staff members belonging to a given category or service is a measure of this type and therefore falls within the scope of that case law.
It is also a general rule that an organisation’s staff members are, in the performance of their duties, placed in a position of hierarchical subordination to its executive head and the various supervisors to whom they report.[...]
[S]taff members cannot ordinarily be allowed the opportunity to challenge measures determining their reporting lines or the choice of persons designated to exercise supervisory functions in their respect. It is the organisation’s prerogative to take such decisions and they cannot therefore be considered to adversely affect those staff members.
Admittedly, under the Tribunal’s case law, as an exception to what has just been said, there are two particular situations in which a staff member may be considered to have a cause of action in challenging decisions of this type. The first is where the contested decision has a direct adverse impact on the rights conferred by that staff member’s terms of appointment (see in particular, for the use of this criterion in the similar context of criticism of a measure falling within an organisation’s management policy, Judgment 3376, consideration 3). The second is where the decision in question involves a manifest perversity that renders her or his challenge lawful (according to the criterion established by the Tribunal in Judgment 4322, consideration 9, in a situation that may be transposed to this area).
However, neither of these situations arises in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1852, 2510, 2856, 2952, 3198, 3362, 3376, 3426, 4145, 4296, 4322, 4337
Keywords:
cause of action; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Decisions regarding special leave are discretionary and, thus, they are subject to only limited review and can be set aside only if they have been taken without authority or in breach of the rules of form or procedure, if they are based on an error of fact or law or have overlooked essential facts, if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts or if there is an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4750, consideration 9, and 4101, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4750
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; special leave;
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has often reiterated that a staff member appointed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract, when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). As a result, the Tribunal’s scope of review is limited when an organization decides not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment because the Tribunal respects an organization’s discretion to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 3948, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). Thus, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may be lawfully justified by the abolition of the post in the context of a restructuring process, provided that the abolition of the post be based on objective and valid grounds, as the abolition of a post must not serve as a pretext for removing unwanted staff, which would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgment 3940, consideration 3). A restructuring decision must be justified by real needs (see Judgment 4009, consideration 15). An international organization may find that it has to reorganise some or all of its departments or units. Restructuring measures may naturally entail the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts or the redeployment of staff. The steps to be taken in this respect are a matter of an organization’s discretion and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4004, consideration 2, and 3940, consideration 3).
In brief, decisions concerning the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, the abolition of a post, and/or a restructuring process, are discretionary decisions subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Non-renewal decisions may be set aside only if they were taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; if they rest upon an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3299, consideration 6). In turn, restructuring decisions, including the abolition of posts, may be set aside only if they are not taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, if they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or if they constituted an abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 2933, consideration 10, and 2742, consideration 34).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2933, 3448, 3586, 3940, 3948, 4004, 4009, 4462, 4587
Keywords:
abolition of post; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring process, unless and until it negatively affects a staff member in breach of staff rules and regulations. A line must be drawn between restructuring directions and decisions, which fall within the discretion of an organization, and individual decisions adopted as a consequence of a restructuring process. The Tribunal will assess whether such individual decisions comply with staff rules and regulations and the Organization’s duty of care. In the present case, there is no evidence that the Organization did not comply with rules and principles concerning the duty of care towards staff in case of restructuring exercises.
Keywords:
discretion; duty of care; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 8
Extract:
With respect to decisions pertaining to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, the Tribunal has also emphasized the limited scope of the review it can exercise. In Judgment 4146, consideration 3, it stated, in particular, the following:
“The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 5).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772, 4146
Keywords:
fixed-term; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).” (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although in some specific situations the Tribunal may determine whether the harassment occurred (see, for example, Judgments 4241, consideration 15, and 4207, consideration 21), in the present case, the Tribunal is not in a position to determine whether the complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment is well founded, as neither the parties’ written submissions nor the evidence presented before it allow it to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4241
Keywords:
evidence; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; submissions;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he case law states that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony, and, for that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 4764, consideration 7). Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4444, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4444, 4764
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; judicial review;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As to its role in a case where the selection of a successful candidate is challenged in a complaint, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law, stated, for example, in Judgment 4625, that in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organization concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organization has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect.
The case law further states that, nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition (see, for example, Judgment 4412, consideration 10). That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgments 3209, consideration 11, and 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein). The case law also states that an organization must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organization must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3652, consideration 7). The Tribunal also recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment (see, for example, Judgment 4594, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3209, 3372, 3652, 4412, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently stated, in consideration 7 of Judgment 4412, for example, that the appointment by an international organization of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4412
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; offer withdrawn;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Staff Regulation 11.2.2 relevantly states that the end of a fixed-term contract at its normal term does not create a right for the employee to have his or her contract automatically renewed or extended. The Tribunal’s case law states that notwithstanding a provision such as Staff Regulation 11.2.2 or a similar provision in a complainant’s terms of appointment, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision taken without authority; in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. The case law further states that the Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgment 3367, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3367, 4503
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that in its report, the Commission correctly referred, among other things, to Judgment 3163, in which the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. In consideration 8, the Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “[…] It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that it is well established in its case law that a decision to transfer an employee of an international organisation, which, as with any appointment decision, lies within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation concerned, is, for that reason, subject to only limited review. Therefore, such a decision may be set aside only if it was taken ultra vires, if it shows formal or procedural flaws or a mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4609, consideration 4, 4451, consideration 6, 3488, consideration 3, 2635, consideration 5, 1556, consideration 5, or 883, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883, 1556, 2635, 3488, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
judicial review; transfer;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 | next >
|
