Delegated authority (545,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delegated authority
Total judgments found: 50
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 3527
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is not in doubt that the President of the EPO may delegate his authority to other officials. However, and as pointed out in Judgment 2028, under 8(3), “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 also Judgments 3071, under 27, and 2558, under 4(a)). In the present case, the EPO did provide proof to the complainant of the delegation of power, his plea is therefore unfounded in this regard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028, 2558, 3071
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3496
120th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of his suspension and the reprimand that he subsequently received.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Article 95, paragraph 2, of the General Conditions of Employment provides that individual provisions for giving effect to these General Conditions of Employment are to be decided either by the Director General or, by delegation of powers, by the official(s) responsible for staff management.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3494
120th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; delegated authority;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, in order to be valid, a delegation of authority must have some basis in the rules. Failing that, any action will be ultra vires (see, for example, Judgment 1696, under 5, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1696
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3352
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the result of the evaluation of their job grade.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The claim that the Director Regulations and Change Management did not have the authority to act on behalf of the President is unfounded. Even without considering the document [...] which showed that the President personally took the final decision, the fact that the letters [...] stated explicitly that "[t]he President of the Office has carefully considered the unanimous opinion of the Appeals Committee concerning your appeal against the results of the evaluation of your job grade" is sufficient to show that the decision was not taken by the Director, but that he was acting merely as the designated intermediary in informing the complainants of the President’s decision, in accordance with the normal administrative practice (see Judgment 2924, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2924
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 3249
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint in which the complainant requested the establishment of a new version of his staff report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; delegated authority; performance report;
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 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
It is not in doubt that the Director-General may delegate his authority to other officials. However, and as pointed out in Judgment 2028, under 8(3), “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 also Judgment 2558, under 4(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028, 2558
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. 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."
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, 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, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 2495
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The decisions of 19 January and 16 July 2004 both expressly mention the fact that the Director of Human Resources was acting by delegation from the Director General. Such delegation, moreover, was based on two general decisions taken on 1 March 2000, which were duly published and classified in a compendium accessible to all the staff. There is no doubt that the subject matter of the individual decisions of 19 January and 16 July 2004 falls within the sphere of application of the general decisions of 1 March 2000.
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 2324
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"[P]ursuant to Rule 5.3.01, only the Director General had authority to place the complainant on special leave with full pay [...] However, [...] it was the Director of Administration, not the Director-General, who wrote to the complainant and informed her that he was 'placing [her] on special leave with pay until further notice'. That letter contains no reference whatsoever to the Director General or to any discussions with the latter. And although, in her request for review, the complainant expressly contended that the Director of Administration had taken the decision in question, the Director-General did not say anything to the contrary in his reply. [...] That correspondence gives rise to the very strong inference that the decision was taken by the Director of Administration and not by the Director General."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Interim Staff Rule 5.3.01
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; evidence; executive head; special leave;
Judgment 2028
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal does not dispute the principle of delegation of authority (see Judgment 1386 [...]); however, 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1386
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; delegated authority; disclosure of evidence; evidence; general principle; organisation's duties; request by a party;
Judgment 1839
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. The methodology [of the International Civil Service Commission] provides in paragraph 6 that, though it is preferable to have representatives of both management and staff take part, the technical requirements will still be met even if one side prefers not to; so that actual participation by both sides is not a requirement. Nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1838
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1834
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant [pleads] that the decision to terminate [her appointment] was not 'initiated' by the Director-General, as Staff Rule 110.04 required. [I]n the context of the Staff Rule the word 'initiated' does not mean that the Director-General himself must be the first person in the administration to take any action at all; it simply requires that the action, when taken, be on the Director-General's behalf and with his prior approval."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF RULE 110.04
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 1696
84th Session, 1998
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The wording of Regulation 9 (b)(3) is plain: the decision to terminate an appointment at the end of probation may be taken only 'after consultation with an advisory body', the Staff Committee." The Organisation submits that it need only speak to the Chairman. But the Committee has several members who are supposed to function as a single body. The Orgnanisation's argument postulates prior delegation of authority to the Committee's Chairman or officers. To be valid, however, such delegation must have some basis in the rules. Failing that, any action "will be ultra vires" there being wrongful failure to consult the Staff Committee, the impugned decision must, in line with patere legem, be set aside.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CCC STAFF REGULATIONS 9(B)(3)
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; decision; delegated authority; due process; organisation's duties; patere legem; probationary period; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 1689
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(c)
Extract:
It is true - as Judgment 1477, for one, affirmed - that, unless so empowered by a written text, a body may not delegate authority or competence. Yet here the material rules did not actually require the Selection Board to interview candidates itself. So it was free to get expert help in framing questions of a sort that only candidates with particular qualifications could answer, even though it still had to assess their answers itself and make recommendations accordingly.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1477
Keywords:
delegated authority;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Insofar as the seven Member States continued to be jointly responsible for the Staff Insurance Scheme (SIS) "the delegation of authority was quite proper. What is more, it was quite understandable since the seven countries still owed the serving and the retired staff joint responsibility for safeguarding their entitlements. That is how the three departing countries were associated in the decisions of the future of the SIS. Besides, the decisions were unanimous, and there can have been no procedural flaw in the mere attendance - which was highly desirable anyway - of representatives of the former Member States as well." The plea of incompetence must, therefore, be rejected.
Keywords:
competence; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive body; member state; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1566
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Organisation points out that the letter from the Director of staff policy "was sent neither by the President nor on his behalf. The complainant demurs, and he is right to do so. It was to the President by name that he had written [...]; that letter was what he got in reply and he was entitled to assume that it had been sent with the President's authority. Indeed the position in law would be the same even if the reply had never been written and if he were basing his complaint on implied rejection of the claims in his letter".
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; good faith; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1550
81st Session, 1996
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"If the complainant felt that the representative's order was ultra vires the proper course was for him, not just to carry on regardless, but to raise the issue with the representative and, if necessary, refer it through the representative to Headquarters for a ruling. By failing to obey an explicit and unambiguous order from his supervisor he was in breach of his duty under the Staff Regulations, which declare staff to be subject to the authority of the Director. In this instance that authority had been delegated to the representative."
Keywords:
conduct; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; due process; insubordination; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 1477
80th Session, 1996
International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The rule that a selection committee may not delegate its authority unless provided for under the Staff Regulations "is even more important where, as in this case, the membership of the body that purports to delegate affords the staff special safeguards. Since the panel's members came mostly from the management side it was no offshoot of the Selection Committee".
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; delegated authority; safeguard; selection board; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is plain from the whole process of selection that though the Committee did endorse the panel's report it had neither looked at the individual applications nor seen any of the candidates but had left all that to the panel. Though it is not unthinkable for a selection committee to set up a panel of people whom it believes to be better fitted to assess the technical qualifications of candidates, especially external ones, it may not delegate altogether its authority under the Staff Regulations. It must exercise its own authority and not delegate unless the rules say it may."
Keywords:
advisory body; competition; condition; delegated authority; flaw; impartiality; procedural flaw; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
