Final decision (657, 27, 28, 30, 545,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Final decision
Total judgments found: 86

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• Judgment 3035

  
  111th Session, 2011
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  Staff Rule 10.1.2 provides that, “[w]hen a charge of serious misconduct is made against a staff member and if the Director General considers that the charge is well founded and that the staff member’s continuance in office pending the results of an investigation might be prejudicial to the service, the Director General may suspend the staff member from duty, with or without pay, until the end of the investigation, without prejudice to his rights”.
  According to the Tribunal’s case law, suspension is an interim measure which need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 1927, under 5, and 2365, under 4(a)). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director General. It can therefore be reviewed by the Tribunal only on limited grounds and will be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 2698, under 9, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698
  

  Keywords:

  final decision; suspension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3034

  
  111th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [I]n accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof when determining the receivability of complaints, it is up to the organisation which intends to rely on late submission to establish the date on which the impugned decisions were notified (see Judgments 723, under 4, or 2494, under 4). Since the Agency has failed to produce any acknowledgement of receipt or other document attesting to the date on which the decisions in question were notified, it has not furnished proof of the alleged late submission.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 723, 2494
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; final decision; late filing; notification; time bar;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2741

  
  105th Session, 2008
  International Olive Oil Council
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5(a)

  Extract:

  The decision-making authority cannot disregard the opinions or recommendations it receives from advisory bodies without good reason (see Judgment 2092, under 10). Otherwise, advisory procedures would be meaningless and serve no purpose. However, such opinions or recommendations do not bind the decision-making authority to the extent of barring it from undertaking an impartial assessment of the merits of the proposals made and curtailing its obligation to examine carefully, in particular, whether the findings of fact that they contain are correct. Nevertheless, where a decision-making authority intends to disregard the recommendations of advisory bodies, it must state clearly in its decision the objective grounds that led it to opt for a divergent conclusion. In the case of a disciplinary procedure, this clearly applies not only to the appraisal of the evidence gathered but also, on the one hand, to the decision whether or not to order a penalty and, on the other, to the severity of the penalty, which should respect the principle of proportionality.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; final decision; motivation; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1308

  
  76th Session, 1994
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  That makes it plain that no final decision had yet been taken on grading his new post P.2 and that the two Boards of Appeal were therefore correct in holding his appeal to be premature and irreceivable. That being so, his complaint too must be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute because what he is challenging is not a "final" decision.

  Keywords:

  final decision; internal appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 580

  
  51st Session, 1983
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  That it was the Governing Body that took the decision is immaterial. Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal's competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
  There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.

  Keywords:

  final decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment .04

  
  Sessions of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, 1946
  League of Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  confirmatory decision; final decision;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5