Lawfulness of a measure (859,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Lawfulness of a measure
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4479

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the changes made with respect to their salary resulting from the decision of the Director-General to implement the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The complainants refer to the Tribunal’s case law which identifies a duty on an organisation which adopts standards or elements of the UN common system, to assess the lawfulness of those standards or elements before implementing them (see, for example, Judgments 1265, consideration 24, 1765, consideration 8, and 2420, consideration 11). They contend the ILO failed in its duty to assess the lawfulness of the unified salary scale by simply relying on the legal opinion obtained from the OLA by the ICSC. How this duty can be satisfied must vary according to the circumstances. The OLA’s advice was, in relation to the unified salary scale and acquired rights, correct. The import of that advice was made known to the ILO in the period leading up to the implementation of the unified salary scale. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the ILO or any of its officers thought the advice was wrong. In these circumstances, the ILO discharged the duty the case law imposes.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1265, 1765, 2420
  

  Keywords:

  icsc decision; lawfulness of a measure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4368

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Olive Council
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  The Tribunal underlines [...] that the situation [...] resulting from the fact that different qualification requirements were specified in the provisions applicable to the competition, was not only liable to introduce a regrettable ambiguity into the determination of selection procedures for candidates – as the IOC appeared to consider – but was quite simply unlawful. Indeed, the Executive Director could not lawfully decide, while allowing the qualification requirements in the job description to remain in force, to specify different requirements in the competition notice, since the statement in the memorandum of 1 December 2016 to the effect that the provisions set out in that notice would not be applied insofar as they were contrary to those specified in the job description was not capable of remedying their unlawfulness.
  Since the contested competition had been opened unlawfully, the requirement that administrative decisions be taken lawfully dictated that it be cancelled, as it would otherwise have led to an appointment to the post in question which would itself inevitably have been unlawful.
  This implies not only that the decision [...] was taken in the interest of the service and hence based on a legitimate reason, so that, pursuant to the [Tribunal's] case law [...], the Executive Director was entitled to adopt it, but also that, in this case, he was in fact bound to do so.

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; competition; lawfulness of a measure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4173

  
  128th Session, 2019
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to assign her to another duty station.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  In Judgment 3037, consideration 11, the Tribunal recalled “the principle that the lawfulness of a measure must be appraised as at the date of its adoption. In consequence thereof all subsequent facts are irrelevant (see Judgment 2365, under 4(c)).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 3037
  

  Keywords:

  lawfulness of a measure;