Grounds (34,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Grounds
Total judgments found: 201
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. The ITU asserts that the complaint is inadmissible because in Judgment 2170 the Tribunal stated that those pleas were dismissed. "Judgment 2170 was concerned with the complainant's entitlement to her step VIII salary increment, her pleas regarding entitlement to salary increment for step [...] X being dismissed on the basis that they were not and could not be the subject of her first complaint. That being so, there was no final and binding decision on her present claim either expressly or as a necessary step to the decision that she was then entitled to a step VIII increment. Accordingly, the complaint is not barred by res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
absence of final decision; claim; complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general principle; grounds; iloat; increase; increment; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; res judicata; right;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 28-29
Extract:
The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant asserts that she was not given reasons for the decision not to renew her contract prior to the decision being taken. [...] The right to receive written reasons [...] implies the right to be given detailed reasons for a decision once it has been made, not prior to its making. This right ensures that an appeal can properly be taken from that decision."
Keywords:
condition; consequence; contract; date; date of notification; decision; grounds; non-renewal of contract; purpose; right; right of appeal;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the decision impugned before the Tribunal is not an administrative decision, but essentially a political one. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant was an international civil servant who was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision to terminate his appointment. That decision must be viewed as an administrative decision, even though it was taken by the Conference of the States parties."
Keywords:
decision; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat; interpretation; member state; official; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the complainant was not a staff member. "The defendant [...] considers that since the particular case of the Director-General of the Organisation was not expressly provided for in the texts on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based, an express provision recognising its jurisdiction would have been necessary. It points out that [another international organisation] (UNESCO), having realised that it had no statutory provision nor any contractual stipulation attributing jurisdiction in the event of a dispute involving its Director-General, decided in 1999 to include such a clause in the contract it signed with him. whilst the Tribunal does not deny that UNESCO thereby clarified difficulties which were liable to arise, it does not view that as authority for the reverse proposition that contracts containing no such clause, entered into by other organisations with their respective chief administrative officers, must be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; decision; exception; executive head; grounds; interpretation; no provision; organisation; provision; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; written rule;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability because the matter was not referred to the Appeals Council. "In the present case, that procedure was not and clearly could not have been followed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the Director-General, stripped of his functions, could have appealed to the Appeals Council established under his own authority, against a decision of the Conference of the States parties, with a view to obtaining a final decision by the new Director-General. [...] An appeal to the Appeals Council was inconceivable, and the impugned decision was clearly a final decision - within the meaning of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute [...] in that situation, a direct appeal to the Tribunal [...] was clearly the only remedy available to the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; competence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; member state; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a non-disciplinary nature is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications (see, for example, Judgments 1496, 1556, 1972 [...]). The transfer may be motivated by the need to eliminate tensions compromising the functioning of a department (see, for example, Judgments 132, 1018 and 1972)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 132, 1018, 1496, 1556, 1972
Keywords:
assignment; case law; decision; discontinuance; effect; formal requirements; general principle; grade; grounds; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; post held by the complainant; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working relations;
Judgment 2228
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Staff Committee, which is a statutory body of the organisation, made the facilities derived from its access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system available to the Staff Union. Its access to the system was withdrawn. "The organisation [submits that] the facilities offered to the Staff Committee cannot be made available to the Staff Union without creating confusion with regard to the attribution of roles and responsibilities, even if those in charge of one of these bodies are also, or may be, in charge of the other. This does not mean to say that the unions should not be provided with certain facilities by the organisations. On the contrary, their freedom of expression should not be hampered, as indicated by the Tribunal in Judgment 1547, [...] and unions must clearly be provided with sufficient facilities, within the framework of negotiated agreements or, if need be, administrative regulations, to enable them to carry on their activities. It is legitimate, however, for the organisation to ensure that the facilities made available to a body officially representing the staff as a whole are not misused for the benefit of a union, or any other body having its own assets and representing only part of the staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1547
Keywords:
administrative instruction; case law; collective bargaining; facilities; freedom of speech; grounds; liability; limits; organisation's duties; purpose; refusal; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; staff union agreement; written rule;
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2180
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The allegation that the reasons for the complainant's non-inclusion on the short list were not fully explained to her when she first asked for the reasons [...] becomes irrelevant in light of the undoubted fact that such reasons were fully and adequately given during the internal appeal procedure."
Keywords:
appointment; failure to answer claim; grounds; internal appeal; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2175
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11(c)
Extract:
"The complainant states that the Director-General based the decision not to renew his contract on the false assumption that he was using [his] project for self-enrichment purposes. If that were true, however, it would be grounds for immediate termination and not merely non-renewal of a fixed-term contract."
Keywords:
contract; decision; executive head; fixed-term; grounds; misconduct; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; termination of employment; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Organisation withheld the complainant's salary increment on the grounds that more time was needed to assess her performance. It claims that the complainant refused to cooperate with evaluations. "If that were the case, it was the job of the administration to deal with the situation and not to act as if the complainant did not exist[...] while there is no doubt that an employee cannot obtain the right to an annual salary increment by deliberately sabotaging the reporting process, it is equally the case that an employer cannot deprive its staff of the increments to which they are entitled by failing to complete the necessary preliminary steps."
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; grounds; increase; increment; increment withheld; official; organisation; organisation's duties; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; right; salary; time limit; work appraisal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation withheld the complainant's salary increment on the grounds that more time was needed to assess her performance. The Tribunal concludes from the relevant provisions that "the requirement that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of the annual salary increment is a formal one. The salary increment [...] was not preceded by an evaluation [...] it is the Organisation's responsibility to see to it that [an annual performance] report is prepared on time. a staff member's right to an increment cannot be defeated by the organisation's failure to comply with its own rules."
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; breach; consequence; date; grounds; increase; increment; increment withheld; official; organisation; organisation's duties; performance report; provision; refusal; right; salary; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [state] that, according to the Tribunal's case law (see Judgment 1821, for example), adjustments to international civil servants' salaries must satisfy objective criteria of stability, foreseeability and transparency. The Tribunal considers that this line of precedent - concerning the determination of staff salaries, which is necessarily governed by very strict rules - is not entirely applicable to the determination of allowances granted for a specific purpose, such as that of covering expenses incurred by staff members on travel status. Even if it claims to be acting in the exercise of its discretion, and although the legal framework surrounding its action remains vague or non-existent, the administration must base its decisions on objective considerations and avoid breaching any of the guarantees protecting the independence of international civil servants."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; allowance; analogy; breach; case law; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; independence; no provision; official; official travel; organisation's duties; purpose; safeguard; salary; travel expenses; written rule;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2125
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The complainant's request to have his contract extended beyond retirement age was not allowed. "On the merits, the Agency is undoubtedly right in pointing out that the Director General has discretion in the matter, over which the Tribunal has only a limited power of review. This discretion enables the Agency to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [...] Although the Director General can determine the interest of the Agency, his decisions must be based on clear and coherent reasons. In this case, the reason given - that the request for an extension contained no indication as to whether any of the criteria [on the basis of which he may authorise such an extension] had been satisfied - is not valid, and the reason based on 'rejuvenation' of the staff is too general to constitute a sufficient justification for the refusal of the complainant's request." The Tribunal considers that "this reason is not in itself reprehensible, but it could be used to justify a systematic refusal to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [By setting out the criteria] the [Agency] established for itself a number of rules which it must apply."
Keywords:
age limit; contract; criteria; decision; definition; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; iloat; judicial review; official; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; patere legem; refusal; request by a party; retirement; written rule;
Judgment 2122
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submitted her candidacy for a post of legal assistant. Her application was not taken into consideration because she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions set out in the notice of competition. She submits that there is a contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2 which sets out conditions for eligibility. The Tribunal finds "no contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2. [...] Contrary to what the complainant appears to suggest, the fact that Article 30(1) of the Staff Regulations says that the 'selection of candidates shall be based on qualifications' does not preclude the setting of eligibility conditions. [...] The eligibility conditions provided for in Rule No. 2 offend against no provision of the Staff Regulations. [...] The complainant did not meet all the conditions set in the notice of competition, and the Agency was therefore right to reject her application."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; complainant; condition; criteria; degree; difference; enforcement; grounds; post; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2121
93rd Session, 2002
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 14
Extract:
The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
A paragraph of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat stipulates that the spouse of a staff member shall normally not be employed in the same department as the staff member. The Tribunal considers that "the provision improperly discriminates between candidates for appointment based on their marital status and family relationship [...]. Discrimination on such grounds is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, general principles of law and those which govern the international civil service, as well as international instruments on human rights. [...] All forms of improper discrimination are prohibited. What is improper discrimination? It is, at least in the employment context, the drawing of distinctions between staff members or candidates for appointment on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Manifestly, the fact that two staff members may be married to each other is not relevant to their competence or the capacity of either one of them to fulfil their obligations. and, if it is thought that marital or intimate personal relationships between staff members may create management problems, such problems must be dealt with in ways that do not discriminate against either of them as a result of such relationships. The Tribunal notes that [the notice] as it is written, besides being too broad, is not even effective in dealing with the presumed possibility of undue influence or favouritism for it is silent on non-marital intimate relationships. It also fails to deal with marriages taking place after appointment".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; international instrument; official; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Most contracts are entered into because both parties think it is to their economic advantage to do so. Where there is great disparity in bargaining power [...] the law will impose constraints upon the more powerful. In the international civil service that is one of the functions of the staff rules, and where these are inadequate, the Tribunal will intervene to redress the balance through the application of general principles of international civil service law."
Keywords:
contract; difference; enforcement; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; right; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"It is elementary that where a reason is given for taking a decision which is adverse to the interests of a staff member the organisation is held to that reason and cannot later seek to justify its action on other grounds."
Keywords:
cause of action; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2090
92nd Session, 2002
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation asserts that "Article 1010.1 allows it to terminate an appointment by giving one month's notice per year of service [...] The Tribunal observes that [...] 1010.1 may not be interpreted as authorising [the organisation] to terminate [fixed- term] contracts arbitrarily. Decisions of this kind must be based on unsatisfactory performance, or the interests of the service. Furthermore, there must be no breach of adversarial procedure nor any error of fact or of law, nor abuse of authority, nor obvious misappraisal of the facts."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1010.1 OF THE IFRC STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
abuse of power; adversarial proceedings; bias; contract; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; notice; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; provision; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
