General principle (181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 900, 663, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645, 209, 211, 664,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: General principle
Total judgments found: 222

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >

• Judgment 3264

  
  116th Session, 2014
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3240

  
  115th Session, 2013
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  "Although the complainant did not take issue with the use of the wrong form for his performance appraisal or with the fact that his immediate supervisor did not conduct the evaluation, this does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to act in compliance with its own Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual provisions implementing those rules (see Judgment 3177, under 18)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177
  

  Keywords:

  general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3223

  
  115th Session, 2013
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
  The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
  
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3216

  
  115th Session, 2013
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3215

  
  115th Session, 2013
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  "As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3214

  
  115th Session, 2013
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2986, 3034
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; request by a party;
  

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
  "The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
  [T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
  

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
  

  
  
  

• 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 3172

  
  114th Session, 2013
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  "The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."

  Keywords:

  breach; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3162

  
  114th Session, 2013
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  "An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724
  

  Keywords:

  breach; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3161

  
  114th Session, 2013
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him which, in his view, violates his status as an employee.

  Considerations 6-7

  Extract:

  "[T]he task of the Internal Appeals Committee is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made. While provisions establishing an internal appeal committee or board may limit its functions, this is not the case in relation to this Internal Appeals Committee established under the Service Regulations applying to the permanent employees of the EPO.
  Of course the authority of the Internal Appeals Committee is limited to making recommendations and, to that extent, the ultimate decision-making power remains, in a case such as the present, with the President of the Office. However, the President is obliged to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and not avoid addressing the reasoning of its members by wrongly indicating, as in this case, that the majority of the Committee’s members had exceeded the limits of their role in determining the appeal."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
  

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; case law; decision; decision-maker; due process; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; internal appeals body; recommendation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3160

  
  114th Session, 2013
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.

  Considerations 16-17

  Extract:

  "As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
  The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3159

  
  114th Session, 2013
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to abolish his post.

  Considerations 9, 19 and 20

  Extract:

  "The terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 are clear. They impose a duty on the Organization in specified circumstances. The duty is to use reasonable efforts to reassign a staff member whose post is being abolished. The specified circumstances are, as to a staff member on a fixed-term appointment, that the staff member has served “for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more”. The expression “continuous and uninterrupted” fairly emphatically focuses attention on service of a particular character. There is no basis in the language of the Staff Rule to treat its operation as ambulatory in the sense that a person who has been on a fixed-term appointment but has not served in that capacity for a continuous and uninterrupted period of at least five years is nonetheless a person to whom the Organization, by operation of the Rule, is under a duty to make reasonable efforts to reassign. [...] However, a staff rule cast in terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 does not preclude the possibility that the Organization is under a duty requiring proactive conduct in circumstances not comprehended by the Rule itself. WHO does not put in issue that there is a general duty of loyalty, as the complainant contends. What might be required of an organisation in broadly similar circumstances was considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902. [...] The same reasoning can be applied in the present case. The complainant and WHO found it mutually acceptable, and with benefits accruing to both, for the complainant to be employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment. But the complainant nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization. In those circumstances, WHO was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1050.2
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; contract; duration of appointment; enforcement; fixed-term; general principle; intention of parties; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3130

  
  113th Session, 2012
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [C]andidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must “shield” the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
  

  Keywords:

  due process; general principle; patere legem;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3123

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "[A]n international organisation is bound by the rules which it has itself laid down, as long as it has not modified or repealed them (see Judgment 1896, under 5(d)), and this principle is especially relevant in disciplinary matters."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1896
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3120

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 6-7

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
  

  Keywords:

  date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3046

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

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
  
  

  Keywords:

  admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3037

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

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal recalls 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
  

  Keywords:

  date; decision; general principle; judicial review; subsequent fact;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3032

  
  111th Session, 2011
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  "[W]hen an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law (see, for example, Judgment 2163 [...], under 3)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; case law; competition; consequence; decision; due process; general principle; organisation's duties; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2986

  
  110th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 26

  Extract:

  "While the terms of a contract and some decisions will in principle give rise to acquired rights, this is not necessarily true of [the] provisions [of the Staff Regulations and Rules]."

  Keywords:

  acquired right; consequence; contract; decision; difference; effect; general principle; provision; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2985

  
  110th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  "[T]he duty of care which an international organisation owes to its officials obviously does not mean that, as a matter of principle, it should abstain from making them subject to rules which are unfavourable to them."

  Keywords:

  applicable law; general principle; official; organisation's duties; written rule;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2459, under 9, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; provision; request by a party;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >