|
|
 |
|
|
Delegated authority (545,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delegated authority
Total judgments found: 50
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.
Considerations 4, 6 and 7
Extract:
The complainant submits that the decision to suppress his post, which fell within the remit of the Secretary General’s competence, was taken by the Director of Human Resources Management, to whom the relevant authority had not been delegated. [...]
Admittedly, nothing in the Staff Manual expressly specifies the authority competent to decide, prior to a termination of appointment, to suppress a post with the likelihood that a termination of appointment will ensue. However, it is clear that this authority can only be, in the absence of an express delegation of power to that effect, the Secretary General himself, by virtue of the general authority conferred upon him as the executive head of the Organization.
In the present case, it must be noted that Interpol has not been able to produce before the Tribunal a delegation of power to the Director of Human Resources Management enabling her to take the [contested] decision [...].
It follows from the foregoing that the decision of the Director of Human Resources Management [...] and, consequently, the decision of the Secretary General [...] must be set aside for that reason.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4831
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law, stated, for example, in consideration 4 of Judgment 4506, recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organisation may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management, provided that it is clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head herself/himself (see also Judgment 4291, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). This principle is satisfied in this case as the terms of the impugned decision make it clear that the decision was taken by the Secretary-General. Additionally, the Chief of HRMD expressly signed the impugned decision for the Secretary-General.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4291, 4506
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4698
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant submits first of all that the impugned decision was unlawful in that authority had not been properly delegated to the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit [...] to take the impugned decision in the name of the Director General.
However, the Tribunal has already held, in Judgment 4593, consideration 5, in a case where the same plea was raised, that the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit did have the authority to take and sign the decision to dismiss an internal complaint, as she did in the impugned decision [...]. That same finding clearly applies to the present case, where the decisions attesting to this delegation of power have again been adduced in evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4593
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he [...] letter [...], which did contain a clear notification of that decision, expressly stated that the Legal Counsel was merely conveying the Director General’s decision. However, the Tribunal’s case law recognises that the decision of the executive head of an organisation may in fact be notified to the official concerned in a letter signed by another senior official, as is common practice (see, for example, Judgments 4291, consideration 17, 4139, consideration 6, 3352, consideration 7, and 2924, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2924, 3352, 4139, 4291
Keywords:
delegated authority; notification;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[S]uch a delegation would have been legally impossible, since it is a general rule that an authority or body cannot legally delegate its powers to a third party unless the rules expressly provide for this (see, for example, Judgments 3494, consideration 16, 1696, consideration 5, or 1477, consideration 7 in fine). Obviously, there was no provision allowing the Invalidity Committee to delegate powers to the multidisciplinary team that was established in this case, which was an ad hoc body not provided for in the Organization’s Staff Regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1477, 1696, 3494
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4593
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As regards the first plea, alleging a lack of delegation in relation to the impugned decision of 21 August 2018 signed by Ms S.D., the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit, the evidence produced by Eurocontrol shows to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that Ms S.D. had the authority to take and sign that decision.
Pursuant to Decision No. XI/14 (2016) of 1 December 2016, power had been delegated by the Director General to the Director of Resources (Mr A.V.) to take and sign decisions relating, inter alia, to the internal complaint process. Furthermore, that delegating decision remained in force during the implementation of the new organisation of management at Director level which was introduced by the Director General’s Decision No. I/25 of 20 April 2018 concerning the Agency organisation.
Article 1 of this decision states the following with regard to the Agency’s Human Resources and Services Unit, placed under the authority of the aforementioned Head whose name appears in the impugned decision, until the detailed organisation of that Unit should be provided for in separate decisions:
“Ms [S.D.] enjoys the same delegated powers in human resources and other Agency services areas as formerly exercised by Mr A.[V.] Any delegations and valid sub-delegations already made by Mr A.[V.] in this regard remain valid.”
It follows that, as a result of that reorganisation of the Agency by the Director General, contrary to the complainant’s assertions, unless and until separate decisions were made concerning delegation of power within the Unit, the Head of Human Resources enjoyed the powers previously delegated to and exercised by Mr A.V. in that regard.
The first plea is unfounded.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4506
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the length of the extension of appointment that was offered to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law states that it is for the Organization to prove that whoever issues a decision is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, considerations 8(3) and 11). Furthermore, the Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management. However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself (see Judgment 4291, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein).
In the present case, the 29 February 2016 letter offered no reference to a delegation of authority or that the decision was taken on behalf of the Director General. Moreover, the Organization has not provided any evidence that the Deputy Director of HRMD held a delegation of authority from the Director General, neither in general nor for this specific case. WIPO merely affirms in its reply: “The [c]omplainant argues that there is no evidence that the decision to extend his contract by two years was made by the Director General, as was required by the Staff Regulations and Rules. The Organization is perplexed by this assertion, and questions why the [c]omplainant would believe that the Director General would sign his name to a decision (that being, the impugned decision at issue in this [c]omplaint) that misrepresents his own prior actions (namely, taking the decision to extend the [c]omplainant’s contract by two years). Without further evidence, the Organization respectfully requests that the Tribunal disregard this assertion.” This argument clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2558, at consideration 4: “Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision. The fact that this requirement was not complied with in the present case is all the more incomprehensible since the decision to be taken concerned the appointment of an official to a managerial post”. In the present case, the decision was likely to affect the running of a whole division of the Administration, as the complainant was the Director of the Copyright Infrastructure Division within the Copyright and Creative Industries Sector (CCIS). The Organization has not provided the Tribunal with a formal delegation by the Director General to the Deputy Director of HRMD, which would have entitled her to set the length of the contract extension. Thus, the Tribunal concludes that the 29 February 2016 decision was taken ultra vires.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028, 2558, 4291
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4444
133rd Session, 2022
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 on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant doubts that the Deputy Executive Director was involved in the disciplinary process. He states that he received the communication dated 2 June 2016, which is the “only supposed sign” that the Deputy Executive Director was involved, only after he (the complainant) raised the issue of lack of authority with the Appeals Committee. In his view, the WFP provided no credible explanation as to why that document did not accompany the memorandum of 15 February 2016 (which proposed the adoption of the disciplinary measure) or the memorandum dated 3 June 2016 (which imposed the measure). He states that it was inevitable for him to doubt that the document dated 2 June 2016 actually existed before he raised the issue. In the Tribunal’s view, the fact that the latter document did not accompany the memoranda of 15 February and 3 June 2016 does not mean that it was not validly issued. In any event, there is no rule or principle which required that they be communicated simultaneously.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4283
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that that decision, which took the form of an e-mail sent [...] by Mr T., Head of People and Finance Operations, was taken without authority.
The Tribunal notes that, although there can be little doubt that that e-mail, in which Mr T. stated that he was acting “[f]or the Director General and by delegation”, merely notified the complainant of an administrative decision taken beforehand, there is no evidence to show that the decision in question was formalised in any other manner, so it must be found that the competition was cancelled as a result of that e-mail. It must therefore be ascertained whether the author of the e-mail had a delegation of the power of signature authorising him to adopt such a measure.
In this case, however, the objection raised by the complainant on that point is unwarranted. The evidence shows that, pursuant to a decision of the Principal Director of Resources [...], Mr T., in his capacity as Head of People and Finance Operations, was granted sub-delegation of authority to sign, on behalf of the Director General, “all documents that fall under his responsibilities”. Moreover, pursuant to a decision [...] on the internal organisation of the Directorate of Resources, the People and Finance Operations Unit has, among other responsibilities, the task of “ensuring the administrative management of recruitment, mobility and careers”, which, contrary to what the complainant contends in his rejoinder, clearly includes taking decisions concerning a competition such as that at issue here. Since Mr T. thus acted within the scope of his authority and, consequently, within the limits of the sub-delegation of the power of signature which he held, the plea that the author of the decision [...] lacked authority has no factual basis.
Keywords:
delegated authority; power of signature;
Judgment 4197
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for payment of overtime hours performed under the terms of an informal agreement concluded within his department.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant claims that the impugned decision was not taken by the proper authority. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the Acts of Delegation provided by the EPO, that the Principal Director of Human Resources had been properly delegated by the President of the Office to take such a decision.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4139
128th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he argument that the signature of such decisions by the Head of the Human Resources Department was common practice at the Global Fund should not be accepted. It is a matter of principle that an illegal practice cannot become legally binding (see, for example, Judgments 1390, consideration 27, 2259, considerations 8 and 9, 2411, consideration 9, 2959, consideration 7, or 3544, consideration 14, and, for a case similar to the present case, [...] Judgment 3071, consideration 28).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1390, 2259, 2411, 2959, 3071, 3544
Keywords:
delegated authority; practice;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he fact, also relied on by the defendant, that the Executive Director had dismissed the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the Head of the Human Resources Department – which he could only have done by disavowing the latter and putting the organization in a delicate position – did not imply that he would necessarily have taken the same initial decision that she had.
Keywords:
delegated authority; executive head; internal appeal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although [...] section 22 of the Handbook does envisage the possibility that the Executive Director might delegate his powers, such delegation must still have been duly established. However, it must be noted that the Global Fund has not been able to produce the delegation allegedly granted to the Head of the Human Resources Department to take decisions of this kind, whereas when a complainant seriously questions the actual delegation of powers, the defendant organization is required to establish proof of their delegation (see Judgments 1185, consideration 2, 2028, consideration 8, paragraph (3), 2558, consideration 4(a), 3071, consideration 27, and 3494, considerations 16 and 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185, 2028, 2558, 3071, 3494
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Global Fund maintains [...] that the Chief of the Executive Director’s management team was involved in dealing with the complainant’s situation. However, this would not be enough to establish that the decision in question was taken by the Executive Director himself.
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority;
Judgment 4080
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to its case law, the Tribunal considers that in an international organisation, a delegation of the power of signature is institutional rather than personal. It hence continues to operate after the delegator has left office and until one of his or her successors decides to withdraw it (see Judgment 3730, consideration 1). Given that decision [...] of 1 February 2009 delegating the power of signature had not been revoked by the new Director General, the decision of 28 January 2015 was lawfully signed on that basis by the Principal Director of Resources.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3730
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 4018
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The defendant organisation’s submission that this undertaking on behalf of Eurocontrol is not valid because it was not given by the Director General himself is manifestly misconceived. Apart from the fact that the executive head of international organisation is obviously not the only authority empowered to represent it in a negotiation of this kind, the issue that arises here is not whether this undertaking was legally valid, but whether it was actually given, which would explain why the clause in question was inserted in the complainant’s contract; and, as already stated, the above-mentioned emails show that it was.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3887
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s assertion that there was a lack of duly established delegations of authority is unsubstantiated. The complainant has not provided any evidence showing that any official had acted ultra vires.
Keywords:
burden of proof; delegated authority;
Judgment 3825
124th Session, 2017
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3565.
Consideration 10
Extract:
As the Tribunal specifically ordered that the written confirmation regarding the removal and destruction of materials was to be signed by the Executive Secretary personally, the signing of the confirmation could not lawfully be delegated to another person. The Commission’s submission that the Executive Secretary’s signature could be dispensed with overlooks the clear language of the order that it was obliged to execute.
Keywords:
delegated authority; execution of judgment;
Judgment 3730
123rd Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that Eurocontrol withdrew his title and duties as Head of Section.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the delegation of power of signature of 1 February 2009 was not withdrawn by the new Director General. In an international organisation, such a delegation is institutional rather than personal. It hence continues to operate after the delegator has left office and until one of his or her successors decides to withdraw it.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3691
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the salary deductions made following their participation in strikes.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[P]ublication is not a requirement for the lawfulness of acts of delegation unless otherwise provided by the relevant rules. It is enough that the delegation be declared and, when a complainant calls for proof that power has in fact been delegated to a specific person, it is a matter for the organisation to produce such proof (see Judgment 2028, consideration 8(3)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3605
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him retroactively to UNIDO Headquarters in Vienna and to recalculate his salary and allowances accordingly, leading to a deduction from his remuneration.
Consideration 15
Extract:
That PSM/HRM was acting on behalf of the Director-General with his authority in making decisions about the reassignment of the complainant to Vienna, is confirmed by the terms of the review decision of 19 December 2011 in which the Director of PSM/HRM, in maintaining the decision of 5 September 2011, said that the complainant was being informed of the review decision “on behalf of the Director-General”. Formulations to this effect have been treated by the Tribunal as sufficient evidence of delegation of power (see, for example, Judgment 1577, consideration 3), particularly when taken together with the presumption of regularity (see Judgment 2915, considerations 14 and 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1577, 2915
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3532
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her home loan supplement in respect of her dependent children.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 3352, under 7, the Tribunal held that it was sufficient if the letter notifying the staff member of the decision clearly stated that the decision was taken by the person having the requisite authority and that the writer of the letter was merely informing the staff member of the decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3352
Keywords:
delegated authority;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
