Breach (235,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Breach
Total judgments found: 168
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2582
102nd Session, 2007
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The IOOC recognised the Tribunal's competence by a letter of 19 September 2003 addressed to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO). "Although the complainant's appointment with the IOOC ended prior to that recognition, which was approved by the ILO's Governing Body at its 288th Session in November 2003, the Tribunal considers that it may properly hear the present case brought by a former official of the IOOC who, subsequently to that recognition, has alleged a breach of statutory provisions."
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; date; declaration of recognition; executive body; executive head; provision; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable because the internal appeals, although timely filed with the President of the Office, had not yet been considered by the Appeals Committee at the time when the complaints were filed. "The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...] The complaints are [therefore] receivable."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of EPO Service Regulations
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; complaint; date; executive head; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; patere legem; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2553
101st Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
"Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
"This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922
Keywords:
breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2524
100th Session, 2006
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 31
Extract:
To advance serious allegations that have not been properly investigated against an official before a body that must issue a decision or recommendation concerning that official amounts to "serious failure of due process and want of fairness and good faith".
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; decision; due process; equity; good faith; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2515
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The decision to advertise the complainant's post [...] was in substance a decision to dismiss him from that post. No reason was ever provided for that decision [...] In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the decision resulted from the management review [conducted by the Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department]. In this regard, it is necessary only to observe that that review involved a denial of due process in that the complainant was not told precisely who had criticised his performance or conduct, nor was he told exactly what they had said. Moreover, he was not given an opportunity to question them or to rebut what was put against him. The decision to dismiss him from his post thus involved a serious breach of the requirements of due process."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; competition; contract; decision; due process; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; post; post held by the complainant; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2498
100th Session, 2006
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
"Staff members may at any time object to discriminatory treatment and request that the Organization put an end to it (see Judgment 978, under 20)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; official; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct following an investigation. "The procedure adopted in this case was clearly flawed in that the complainant was denied the opportunity to question any of the persons whose statements were used against him, evidence of little probative value was relied upon and, at least to some extent, he was required to prove his innocence instead of having the matters alleged proven against him. [...] It follows that the [...] decision [...] to dismiss the complainant must be set aside. The complainant shall be reinstated [...] and shall receive all arrears of salaries and other benefits; he must account for any earnings from other employment."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; burden of proof; consequence; disciplinary measure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; procedural flaw; reinstatement; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; testimony;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 2418
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Appeals Committee considered that the promotion procedure carried out under the vacancy notice was legally flawed and it unanimously recommended that the three contested appointments be revoked and that the application procedure be re-run. The President of the Office refused to re-run the procedure as recommended by the Committee. The Tribunal, having found that the challenged decision was irregular, in breach of the principle of equal treatment and that the Administration's attitude showed a distinct lack of even-handedness, awards punitive damages in the sum of 2,500 euros to each complainant.
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; equal treatment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; punitive damages;
Judgment 2396
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Any administrative or disciplinary body of an organisation which consults a third party to obtain information concerning the professional behaviour of one of its staff members must naturally avoid impairing the latter's dignity and reputation. In the first place, it absolutely must ensure that the presumption of his innocence is maintained, and if its action is such as to breach the presumption of innocence or the fundamental rights of the staff member, making that action confidential is of no avail."
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; executive body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; qualifications; respect for dignity; right;
Judgment 2393
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The general principles allow that a discretionary decision with respect to an appointment may be set aside if applicants have not received equal treatment."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; condition; discretion; equal treatment; general principle; right;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2376
98th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not renewed. He later reached a settlement agreement with the ILO which stated that the decision not to renew his contract would have no consequence on any future application submitted by him. He alleges a breach of the terms of the settlement agreement. "[T]he settlement, concluded well after the complainant's loss of his position as a staff member, was not a term or condition of his appointment, nor did it form part of the Staff Regulations. The Statute [of the Tribunal], in Article II(4), requires that where the dispute relates to an agreement outside the terms of employment of a staff member, the agreement must contain a provision giving the Tribunal competence over disputes with regard to its execution so that the Tribunal can hear such a dispute. There is none. The complaint is [therefore] irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 4, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; date; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vested competence;
Judgment 2373
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
After the decision not to renew his contract the complainant was placed on special leave with full pay until the end of the contract and his access to the building was withdrawn. When he went to the OPCW's premises in order to hand in his request for review, he was escorted at all times by a security officer. The complainant considered this treatment to be an affront to his dignity. "Without in any way denying that the OPCW, like many other international organisations, must be vigilant about matters of internal security, the Tribunal notes that neither in the impugned decision nor in its reply does the Organisation give any explanation as to why it was thought necessary to treat the complainant in such a humiliating manner. Except in the most urgent cases, the requirements of security can almost always be fully met while still respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. This is especially so where [...] there is no breach of discipline involved and the person concerned has for many years occupied a position of trust to the Organisation's apparent complete satisfaction. [...] The Tribunal assesses [the moral] damages at 10,000 euros [...]."
Keywords:
assignment; breach; contract; grounds; injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's duties; reply; respect for dignity; right; salary; satisfactory service; special leave;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). 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 is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, 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, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
Judgment 2363
97th Session, 2004
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;
Judgment 2362
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant's candidacy to a vacant post was rejected. "She states that her immediate supervisor [had] received a minute from HRD, instructing her that in preparing her shortlist of candidates, priority should be given to internal candidates, then to those persons who had been working for the Office for an extended period on what are regarded as 'precarious' conditions, such as herself, and lastly to other external candidates. She contends that, contrary to the instructions in the minute, her supervisor reviewed all the candidates in order to prepare her shortlist, disregarding those priorities, thus rendering the selection decision null and void. [The Tribunal considers that] what is important, however, is that the recruitment procedure in the Staff Regulations and the terms of the vacancy notice were complied with. The priorities for shortlisting candidates were merely indicated in a minute from HRD."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; information note; internal candidate; priority; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; staff regulations and rules; submissions; supervisor; terms of appointment; vacancy; vacancy notice;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
