|
|
 |
|
|
Mistake of law (567,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of law
Total judgments found: 46
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4906
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
In support of his applications, the complainant submits that Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732 are flawed by material errors and that the Tribunal failed to take account of material facts. Furthermore, he relies on the discovery of a new fact.
Firstly, in respect of the material errors, the complainant submits that these consist of “incorrect findings of material facts”,“incorrect findings of fact” and “legally invalid and incorrect” findings of fact, which formed the bases for the decisions in Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732. However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s objections do not relate to material errors but are solely an attempt to challenge the view taken by it in the judgments in question. As it is, the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4883
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint at the end of the preliminary assessment procedure.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls [...] that, when such a stage is provided for in the procedure for examining a harassment complaint, the sole purpose of the preliminary assessment is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation into that complaint. It follows that, at the preliminary assessment stage, a prima facie finding that some elements alleged by the person lodging the complaint in its support are genuine is, as a rule, sufficient to justify the continuation of the procedure, since it is in the course of the investigation itself, if opened, that the comprehensive search for evidence must be made (see to that effect, in particular, Judgment 4900, also delivered in public this day, considerations 27 and 28, as well as Judgments 4746, consideration 9, and 3640, consideration 5).
In this case, the Tribunal finds that the reality of the facts alleged by the complainant was for the most part corroborated by testimonies gathered during the preliminary assessment.
The Tribunal considers that such facts prima facie met the definition of harassment arising from Item 18.2 of the Human Resources Manual quoted in consideration 4, above. The actions and statements of which Mr M. was accused could in fact be reasonably perceived as constituting, in particular, offensive and/or undesired conduct in the workplace having the effect of affronting the complainant’s dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading and/or humiliating work environment.
In those conditions, Ms T. was wrong to consider that an investigation did not need to be opened because there was no “prima facie evidence of harassment”.
That flaw alone is sufficient to justify the setting aside of the impugned decision, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 4746, 4900
Keywords:
harassment; mistake of law; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties;
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 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant’s personnel file.
Keywords:
administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;
Judgment 4736
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 15
Extract:
By imposing a disciplinary measure of summary dismissal without termination indemnities on the complainant, the Secretary General therefore breached the provisions of aforementioned Staff Rule 12.1.3(1)(i) and thereby committed an error of law. The Tribunal observes that it is even possible to consider that this measure, insofar as it amounts in practice to a summary dismissal for mere misconduct, is not among those listed in Staff Rule 12.1.3(1) and that the Secretary General therefore breached the principle nulla poena sine lege, applicable in disciplinary matters, according to which an authority cannot lawfully impose a sanction other than those provided for in the organisation’s staff rules and regulations (see, in particular, Judgment 757, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 757
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mistake of law;
Judgment 4569
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant simply challenges the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in the two judgments in question, as he has already done in his application for review of Judgment 4370. However, these may not be challenged in an application for review (see Judgment 4440, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370, 4440
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4440
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[L]es appréciations d’ordre juridique que le Tribunal porte dans un jugement ne sauraient être utilement critiquées dans le cadre d’un recours en révision (voir le jugement 3984, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4378
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close after an initial review and without conducting a formal investigation his harassment complaint against the WHO Internal Oversight Services.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is understandable why the complainant’s formal harassment complaint was directed against IOS. He was not necessarily informed who from that department was involved in his case. The fact that the complainant’s harassment complaint was directed against the entire IOS did not absolve WHO from investigating (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14; see also Judgment 4207, consideration 15), as the complaint could readily be construed as targeting the persons within IOS who had dealt with the complainant’s case, even if their identity was known only to the Administration. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that paragraph 3.1.4 of the WHO Policy provides that “[h]arassment may involve a group”. Finally, WHO cannot ignore that the case law of the Tribunal recognizes institutional harassment (see Judgments 3250, 4111, 4243 and 4345) and that it should take this into account when interpreting its own rules. Accordingly, the external reviewer’s finding that the complainant’s harassment complaint was beyond the scope of the WHO Policy and was, therefore, irreceivable is an error of law. However, this error of law does not have any impact on the outcome of the present complaint, as the external reviewer also conducted an initial review of the substance of the complainant’s harassment complaint, as provided in the WHO Policy.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3347, 4111, 4207, 4243, 4345
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; mistake of law;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Appeal Board’s approach to the substance of the complainant’s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board’s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant’s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
Judgment 4129
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he plea of a mistake of law is not an admissible ground for review (see Judgment 1529, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 3987
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The gravamen of the application for review involves a contention that the Tribunal disregarded the fundamental facts of the case and, in the result, the amount ordered by way of damages was far too low. Indeed it is contended that the “complainant felt such paltry amounts to be rather insulting rather than compensatory”. But in substance, the complainant is simply challenging the assessment by the Tribunal of the damages which should be awarded, and that matter is res judicata unless an error is established of the type which can found a review. No such error is identified.
Keywords:
mistake of law;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that “[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board” by the complainant.
In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure before the tribunal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3905
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
It is evident that, in its report of 22 February 2016, the Appeals Board viewed the notification of the abolition of the complainant’s position and the termination of his appointment in the letter of 16 June as the communication of a single decision. This was a fundamental error of law. Decisions to abolish a post and terminate an appointment are separate and distinct decisions.
Keywords:
abolition of post; internal appeals body; mistake of law; termination of employment;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
"It follows from the JAB’s failure to obtain and consider evidence central to the claim that its conclusion and recommendation are tainted by an error of law. As the Director General adopted the conclusion and accepted the recommendation, his decision is also tainted by an error of law (see Judgment 2742, under 40)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742
Keywords:
discretion; disregard of essential fact; final decision; mistake of law;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
When the Tribunal is seised of a complaint against a disciplinary penalty, it must quash the penalty if it is based on an error of fact or of law, overlooked some essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 2262, under 2, and 2365, under 4(a) in fine).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2262, 2365
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; mistake of law; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2393
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The general principles also allow that a mistake as to a candidate’s qualifications or experience may constitute a mistake of fact or result in some material fact being overlooked. It is this consideration that is invoked by the complainant’s contentions that he had greater experience and skills than the successful candidate, and that the interview panel and the FAO were mistaken as to his management skills. However, and as held in Judgment 1827, the selection of candidates necessarily “requires a high degree of judgment” with which the Tribunal will interfere only if a serious defect is demonstrated. And as was also held in that judgment, a defect of that kind is not established merely by asserting that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; selection procedure;
Judgment 2029
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considérant 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1878
87th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that lack of proportionality is an error of law: see Judgments 203 [...], 1070 [...] and 1271 [...]. According to the Tribunal's jurisprudence, a sanction out of porportion to the subjective and objective nature of the offence is a mistake of law and since the decision is flawed it must be quashed. The complainant refers to cases where the material or moral interests of an international organisation were jeopardised and the Tribunal confirmed decisions of summary dismissal for serious misconduct: see Judgments 63 [...], 159 [...] and 969 [...]. Insulting a colleague in the privacy of his office and then offering apologies that evening and the next morning, which were accepted in writing, does not constitute serious misconduct. Her actions did not jeopardise the material or moral interests of the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 63, 159, 203, 969, 1070, 1271
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mistake of law; proportionality; serious misconduct;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
