|
|
 |
|
|
Mistake of fact (565,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of fact
Total judgments found: 63
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
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 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Given the inaccuracy in the reasons given for not promoting the complainant, which also means that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary manner, the […] impugned decision is flawed and will be set aside (see, for example, Judgment 3647, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3647
Keywords:
decision quashed; discretion; mistake of fact; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4150
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3848.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3848
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; mistake of fact;
Judgment 4133
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3956.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In his application for review of Judgment 3956, the complainant submits that the Tribunal made a mistake of fact involving no exercise of judgement and failed to take into account particular facts. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, these are admissible grounds for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3956
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; mistake of fact; summary procedure;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[I]t is desirable to refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal to findings of fact made by internal appeal bodies such as the HBA. As is evident from the Tribunal’s discussion in Judgment 2295, under 10, it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. Moreover the findings of such an internal appeal body warrant deference. In addition, where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error; mistake of fact;
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;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
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;
Judgment 3006
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if 'the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a 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 procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although [...] the decision [to promote the complaintant to grade A5] did not create any rights because it stemmed from a factual error, it could be reversed only on certain conditions dictated by the principle of good faith. This principle requires, firstly, that the power to reverse a decision resting on a factual error must be exercised as soon as the competent authority notices the error in question and not at a later date chosen at its own convenience. Secondly, this principle requires that if the person concerned by a decision resting on a factual error has not contributed to this error, he or she must not suffer any unfavourable consequences from the application of the decision in question during the period before it was reversed. In particular, it is thus essential that any remuneration received by the official concerned on the basis of this decision should not give rise to reimbursement or any other form of restitution."
Keywords:
condition; consequence; decision; good faith; individual decision; mistake of fact; promotion; right; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Following his promotion to grade A5, the complainant was informed that his promotion to that grade was due to a clerical error and that the Administration's intention was to promote him to grade A4(2). Thus, his promotion to grade A5 was reversed. He challenged that decision but the President decided to maintain it. The Tribunal found that his promotion to grade A5 stemmed from a purely factual error and not from the Administration's genuine intention and that it could therefore be reversed. It nevertheless awarded him compensation for moral injury.
"The nub of this case is whether the President could lawfully reverse the decision [...] to promote the complainant to grade A5 [...]. Since the Service Regulations do not contain any specific provisions governing the conditions for the reversal or revocation of administrative decisions, this question can be settled only by referring to the general principles of law applied by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; no provision; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Even though [...] the Organisation was entitled to reverse the decision wrongly promoting the complainant to grade A5, the factual error on which its initial decision rested was nonetheless negligent. By submitting a draft decision whose content had not been properly checked for signature by the President, the services of the Organisation displayed gross negligence, which is even less excusable in view of the fact that individual decisions on promotion are of a particularly sensitive nature. The complainant obviously had cause to be extremely disappointed because, having been notified of this decision, he was then told that it had been reversed and that he had been promoted simply to grade A(2). By proceeding in this manner the EPO breached the duty which the Tribunal's case law establishes for every international organisation not to cause its staff unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgments 1526, under 3, or 2007, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1526, 2007
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; injury; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation's duties; promotion; staff member's interest;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Since the decision to promote the complainant to grade A5 stemmed from a clerical error, i.e. a purely factual error, and not from a genuine intention of its author, the Tribunal considers that it did not create rights for the person concerned and that it could therefore be subsequently reversed.
Indeed, one of the essential requirements of any administrative decision is that it should be consistent with its author's intention. Consequently, where that is not the case, it is important that the impact of the decision should be limited as much as possible, even though its existence cannot be denied. Similar considerations led the Tribunal to set aside the application of a decision resting on a purely factual error in an earlier case concerning the repayment of an indemnity which had been paid in error (see Judgment 1111, under 5). Although the instant case concerns a somewhat different issue, it is likewise appropriate to consider that the decision in question, which stems from a factual error, could not create any rights and that the competent authority was therefore entitled to reverse it at any time. Indeed, the opposite would be liable to conflict not only with the interests of the organisation concerned but also with the principle of equal treatment of officials, insofar as it could, in some extreme cases, result in preposterous individual decisions reached by pure oversight becoming final."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111
Keywords:
decision; equal treatment; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; organisation's interest; promotion; right;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849
Keywords:
case law; cause; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; liability; mistake of fact; official; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he decision of the chief executive officer of an organisation to recover an unduly paid sum of money falls within his or her discretionary authority and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, but this decision must nevertheless be censured if it is tainted with a formal or procedural irregularity, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; procedural flaw; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 2807
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not undertake an exercise to classify or reclassify posts in an organisation's structure [...], since decisions in this sphere lie within the discretion of the organisation and may be set aside only on limited grounds. Such is the case, for example, if the competent bodies breached procedural rules, or if they acted on some wrong principle, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion [...]. In the absence of such grounds, the Tribunal will not remit the case to the organisation, nor will it substitute its own post evaluation for that of the competent bodies [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2151, 2514, 2581
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2752
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 2745
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 2524 that, although harassment and mobbing do not require bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent, 'behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question'. Thus, it was said in Judgment 2370 that conduct that 'had a valid managerial purpose or was the result of honest mistake, or even mere inefficiency' would not constitute harassment. However and as pointed out in Judgment 2524, 'an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524
Keywords:
bias; condition; conduct; consequence; definition; evidence; good faith; grounds; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of fact; organisation's duties; proportionality; qualifications; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2669
104th Session, 2008
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Director-General's authority to extend a staff member's service beyond the retirement age is found in Staff Regulation 301.9.5. "This provision makes it clear that a decision to grant an extension of a staff member's contract is within the discretionary authority of the Director-General. It is well established in the case law that the Tribunal will only intervene in these circumstances if it can be shown that the executive head of the organisation acted without authority, breached a rule of form or procedure, or that the decision was based on a mistake of fact or law, or overlooked an essential fact, or that clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO Staff Regulation 301.9.5
Keywords:
age limit; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; flaw; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; refusal; retirement;
Judgment 2540
101st Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 442 that:
«As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable.»
To that should be added the rider that the duty to act in good faith and, also, the duty to respect the dignity of a subordinate require that the subordinate be given an opportunity to answer any criticism made and that his or her answers or explanations be fairly considered."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
allowance; consequence; difference; equity; general principle; good faith; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2514
100th Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that it is for the competent body and, in the last resort, the executive head of the relevant organisation to grade staff members following an exercise involving the making of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment if it is shown, for example, that the competent body acted on some wrong principle or overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see Judgments 594, 1067, 1152, 1281 and 1495)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 594, 1067, 1152, 1281, 1495
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2468
99th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated for unsatisfactory services. "The defendant is not wrong to point out that, 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. The Tribunal, which pays considerable attention to these issues in the case of complaints concerning dismissal at the end of a probationary period or the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance, must be even more vigilant where an organisation terminates the appointment of a staff member holding a contract without limit of time, which in principle should secure him against any risk of job loss or insecurity. This applies particularly in the present case, since the staff member concerned by the termination for unsatisfactory services received on the whole satisfactory or even excellent appraisals over a period of 15 years."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; contract; different appraisals; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; period; permanent appointment; probationary period; satisfactory service; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2456
99th Session, 2005
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
The complainant joined the Organisation in January 1998 under a fixed-term appointment. His contract, which was extended in 2003, was due to expire on 14 June 2004; it was not renewed due to the implementation of the seven-year tenure rule. He has produced before the Tribunal a document signed by the Director-General containing data about his performance, in which his date of entry on duty was incorrectly shown as 24 May 1997. He contends that the Director-General relied on that data in deciding not to renew his contract. "Since in the implementation of its policy the Organisation was said to be applying a 'first in, first out' rule, an error of over seven months in the calculation of any employee's length of service may be of critical importance. That is especially the case where such apparent error has the effect of indicating wrongly that the employee would at the time of his separation from the Organisation have served more than seven years. The Tribunal considers the alleged errors of fact to be material. [...] The non-renewal decision must be set aside and the Organisation shall be ordered to pay to the complainant the full balance of salary and benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had received a one-year extension of his contract to 14 June 2005. The complainant must account for any earnings from other employment during that period."
Keywords:
allowance; appointment; consequence; contract; date; decision; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension of contract; fixed-term; general principle; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; period; reckoning; right; salary; staff member's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2427
99th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
