Executive head (549,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Executive head
Total judgments found: 211
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Board carefully analysed, in detail and over several pages, the evidence concerning the factual question of whether there had been notification to the complainant. It observed, correctly, that the burden of proof that notification had been given fell on the person who sent the document, in this case the Organization, citing Judgment 3871, consideration 9. Its analysis and conclusion that the Organization had not proved that notification had been given is unexceptionable and certainly does not reveal a manifest error. In the impugned decision of 23 August 2021, the Director General accepted the pivotal significance of the factual question about notification. […] [The Director General] challenged the reasoning of the Appeal Board. But, in the face of that reasoning, his analysis is unpersuasive.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; executive head; medical opinion; notification;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant […] requests that the Tribunal order that the new disciplinary measure to be imposed, if any, be limited to a lesser one than that which the Director-General imposed in his original decision of 8 May 2018, pursuant to the principle of double jeopardy. The Tribunal does not have the power to make orders of this kind, nor can it limit in such a way the discretion of the Director-General to determine the appropriate disciplinary measures, if any, to be imposed, in the event that misconduct is established.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; order; proportionality;
Judgment 4738
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider him not eligible for the appointment of Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat for a mandate starting in January 2022.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head;
Judgment 4737
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.
Consideration 4
Extract:
A clear indicator of the status of the Secretary-General as an official, is that he or she is part of the Secretariat performing duties described in [Article 35(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty] (and elsewhere in the Treaty), namely providing the Charter Conference with all necessary assistance for the performance of its duties and entering “administrative and contractual arrangements”.
The organisation relies on other normative legal documents to argue the complainant is not an official. But the relevant legal question is not whether the Secretary-General is an official for the purposes of those rules, but whether he is for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal is satisfied he is.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; executive head; official;
Consideration 13
Extract:
It is true that the terms on which [the complainant] was initially appointed expressly, in his letter of appointment, recognised his right to have protected any acquired right. But the relevant question is whether a right to repeatedly reapply for the position was an acquired right which could not be altered. The Tribunal’s case law recognises that international civil servants’ conditions of employment existing at the time of recruitment are not immutable and need not, of necessity, be applied to them throughout their careers (see, for example, Judgment 4465, considerations 5 to 8). The Tribunal is not satisfied that an unconstrained right to reapply for the position of Secretary-General meets the criteria of an acquired right identified in, for example, Judgment 4195, consideration 7.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195, 4465
Keywords:
acquired right; appointment; executive head;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The organisation contends that the Tribunal is not competent to hear this complaint for two reasons. The first which should be addressed is the argument that the complainant was not an “official” of the organisation for the purposes of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. The organisation relies in part on the terms on which it recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as contemplated by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute. The terms of recognition can be a relevant consideration in determining the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2232, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; executive head; official;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he organisation [contends] that the decision not to launch the reappointment procedure, which was made by the Conference, was a bare political decision that is not open to judicial review. But the Tribunal notes that the decision was not entirely political but indirectly raised the question of the application of the conditions in the rules for appointment of the Secretary-General and had a direct legal adverse effect on the complainant, an international civil servant. The observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2232, consideration 10, are apt to apply:
"a decision terminating the appointment of an international civil servant prior to the expiry of his/her term of office is an administrative decision, even if it is based on political considerations. The fact that it emanates from the Organisation's highest decision-making body cannot exempt it from the necessary review applying to all individual decisions which are alleged to be in breach of the terms of an appointment or contract, or of statutory provisions".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; competence of tribunal; executive head;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The limitation on reapplication [to the position of Secretary-General] was to operate in the future and, in terms, was to operate on the “serving” Secretary-General. Thus, it was, in terms, to apply in the future to anyone with that status. While the complainant acquired that status (by way of reappointment) on the same day the amendment took legal effect, the amendment creating the limitation on reapplying could and would, on its face, apply at the expiration of the term of the complainant’s reappointment. It is the combined effect of the historical fact that the complainant had been reappointed once to the position in 2016, effective 1 January 2017, together with his status as Secretary-General after the amendment came into effect, that engaged the amendment.
Moreover, the purpose of the amendment is clear. It was to eliminate the possibility that a serving Secretary-General could, by repeated reappointments flowing from repeated reapplications, remain in the position for a very lengthy period of time. Its purpose was to ensure finite periods of occupation of the position rather than open-ended periods.
Keywords:
appointment; executive head; retroactivity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;
Judgment 4370
131st Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to retire him at the end of the month in which he reached the age of 62, even though he had not completed the five years of contributions required for the payment of a retirement pension by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t should be borne in mind that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of the organisation exercises wide discretion and which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3884, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3884
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age;
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 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 4
Extract:
Although neither these provisions nor the other rules governing the staff of the Global Fund clearly specify the authority competent to decide, prior to such a termination of contract, to abolish a post with the likelihood that a termination will ensue, it is clear that this authority can only be, in accordance with the case law cited above, the Executive Director himself, by virtue of the general authority conferred upon him as the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
decision-maker; executive head;
Judgment 4089
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285
Keywords:
age limit; competence of tribunal; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review; retirement;
Judgment 4084
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant contends that, contrary to Staff Regulation 4.3(a), her transfer was not in the best interest of WIPO and that no consideration was given to her interests. The Tribunal has consistently stated that what is in the interest of an organization should be left to the organization to decide (see Judgment 2105, under 17) and that greater caution must be shown before interfering with such decisions because the executive head must ordinarily be deemed to be the best judge of what the interests of the organization are (see Judgment 1050, under 4, and Judgment 3193, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1050, 2105, 3193
Keywords:
executive head; organisation's interest;
Judgment 4062
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, or 3830, considerations 6 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly observed, and recently done so in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, that: “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3863
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3312
117th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In Judgment 2495, under 9(b), the Tribunal held that in taking a decision at the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, an Executive Head, such as the Registrar, is not bound by the recommendations of a disciplinary board. The Registrar may depart from them if another solution is considered to be more appropriate to ensure the satisfactory running of the Organization. The Tribunal will not substitute its assessment for that of the Registrar, unless it notes a clear disproportion between the gravity of the offence committed and the severity of the penalty imposed by the Registrar. However, a Registrar who departs from a recommendation of a board, as in this case, must state the reasons for disregarding it. One purpose which is served by this requirement to give reasons is to enable the Tribunal to evaluate whether the decision is proportionate in the event that the decision is challenged in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2391, under 8). In this case, the Registrar motivated her decision for departing from the recommendation of the DAB, but gave insufficiently cogent reasons for issuing the reprimand and warnings to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2391, 2495
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; executive head;
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 13
Extract:
"[A] provision [...], which grants the executive head of an organisation the power to propose that another organ adopt a decision, authorises that person to refrain from making such a proposal if he or she sees no reason for it (see Judgment 585, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 585
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; proposal; staff regulations and rules;
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 3193
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;
Judgment 3191
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; selection board; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 3177
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to refuse to promote him to grade P-5.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"The complainant alleges first that the Director-General did not properly delegate the authority to make the final decision at issue. The impugned decision was signed by the Director ad interim of HRM and not the Director-General.
This is not a question of delegation of authority. Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the authorised decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision. In Judgment 2028, relied on by the complainant, the decision was flawed because no evidence was adduced that the person with authority had actually made the decision or properly delegated it (see Judgment 2028, under 8(3)). It is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself."
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; general principle;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3164
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[B]y merely stating that he accepted the [Joint Advisory Appeals] Board’s recommendations without specifying the practical steps to be taken in order to implement them, the Director-General issued a fundamentally flawed decision the execution of which was bound to be problematic."
Keywords:
acceptance; decision; executive head; flaw; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 3149
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; executive head; harassment; non-renewal of contract;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
