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 2083
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant suffered from retinal detachments and a detachment of the vitreous. The organization recognised her eye condition as service incurred. In "September 1998 [...] the [organization] decide[d] to stop reimbursing the bills [she submitted] on [the] grounds [...] that curing her retinal detachments was no longer the object of the treatment. However, it did not show that the service-incurred injuries were not a "direct and principal" cause of the treatment [... ] The Tribunal takes the view that although, as the organization says, the decision to stop reimbursing the bills was at the discretion of the Director-General, it could not be taken without an independent expert medical opinion obtained through a process which provides all the safeguards of transparency and impartiality." The case is therefore sent back to the organization.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; discretion; due process; executive head; expert inquiry; grounds; illness; independence; lack of evidence; medical expenses; medical opinion; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; professional accident; refund; refusal; safeguard; service-incurred;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that the decision not to shortlist him was not adequately explained. But the plea cannot succeed. Precedent has it that when an organisation informs candidates that they have been unsuccessful, it must take care not to harm their prospects. Moreover, in announcing the results of a competition and, more generally when the administration has to choose between several candidates, as here, the reasons for the choice need not be given at the same time as the decision. It is enough for the reasons to be given in some later procedure (see Judgments 1990 and 2035 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2035
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competition; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; refusal; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2048
91st Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12 and 15
Extract:
Sending a threatening letter to a colleague is unacceptable conduct by an international civil servant. The Tribunal is of the opinion that this is a valid reason for not renewing a contract.
Keywords:
conduct; contract; decision; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; grounds; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; staff member's duties; working relations;
Judgment 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 1911
88th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"It is a general principle of the international civil service that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract and that the reason must be given to the staff member [...]. An official whose fixed-term contract is reaching expiry must be informed in a timely manner of the real reasons for the decision not to renew it [...]. In this case a mere reference to a letter sent to the complainant nearly two years previously cannot, in the absence of any other indication as to the real reasons for the decision to be taken, exempt the observatory from stating the grounds clearly."
Keywords:
contract; date; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 1906
88th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant argues that, since none of [the instances of insubordination and improper activity which were noted by the organization] was ever made the object of disciplinary proceedings against him, they cannot be invoked as reasons in support of the decision not to renew his contract. The complainant is wrong. An organization is never under an obligation to launch disciplinary proceedings against a staff member and, where that person's appointment is drawing to an end, the fact that there are possible disciplinary infractions on his part may properly be considered when the administration is deciding whether or not to offer him a new contract."
Keywords:
contract; disciplinary procedure; grounds; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 1821
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organisations to set adjustments in staff pay [...] may be concisely stated as follows: (a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...]. (b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are 'stable, foreseeable and clearly understood' [...]. (c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...]. (d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff's expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...]." (See cited case law.)
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1817
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given his full say."
Keywords:
case pending; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 1791
86th Session, 1999
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In support of their plea that the impugned decision rested on wrong reasons and wrong conclusions [the complainants] contend that [the Organization] was mistaken in its explanation: there was in fact no financial crisis warranting a compulsory pay cut. [...] The plea fails. The evidence [...] shows that [the Organization's] member States had not been spared the economic and financial plight of Europe at the time and so were much less able to fund the Organization. That was why [...] they had to think again about the budget [...] and demand a big cut. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that [the Organization] did not give wrong reasons or draw any blatantly wrong conclusions."
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; grounds; mistaken conclusion; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1789
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The Organisation] rejected [the complainant's application] on the grounds that he was overqualified [for the job put up for competition]. Such grounds are wrong in law. Yet they are the only ones on which the [organisation] rejected the complainant, purporting to act under R II 1.03 [of the Staff Regulations]. It thereby denied the complainant his right to apply and to have his application properly considered. There was breach of equal treatment."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 1.03 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1787
86th Session, 1999
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When a decision is adverse to a staff member the competent administrative authority does have to reveal the reasons for it. But when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly, when a choice is made between candidates the reasons for the choice need not be notified at the same time as the decision."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; time limit;
Judgment 1757
85th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Transfer is such an important decision that it must be properly accounted for. For one thing, that helps the staff member to make up his mind about what to do, for example lodge an appeal; for another, it allows review of the lawfulness of the decision. Yet the reasons need not be stated in the actual text notifying transfer: they may have been conveyed beforehand or later, even in the course of internal appeal proceedings."
Keywords:
date; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; right of appeal; transfer;
Judgment 1750
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent does indeed have it that non-renewal and valid reasons for it must be duly notified so that the staff member may act accordingly and in particular exercise the right of appeal [...]. The case law does not require that the reasons be stated in the text that gives notice of non-renewal."
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; right of appeal;
Judgment 1741
85th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"Whatever his rank was in the programme the complainant was entitled to appraisal that was in keeping with the written rules or at least so far observed due process as to afford him the opportunity of adding any timely comments of his own for entry in his personal file. [...] [T]he conclusion is that for want of any properly made appraisal there is no objective and reliable means of reviewing the grounds for non-renewal. The impugned decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
decision; due process; grade; grounds; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw; work appraisal;
Judgment 1732
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
It has been plain "that an allegation of personal prejudice will rarely be susceptible of direct proof and must usually be established by inference: see Judgment 495 [...]. Where there is a rational and legitimate explanation for the decision, however, the Tribunal should not be overzealous to infer bad faith or improper motive simply because the individuals concerned do not enjoy good personal relations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 495
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; decision; evidence; grounds; misuse of authority; working relations;
Judgment 1729
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"It is a fundamental requirement of any decision to abolish a post that there be objective grounds for it: see Judgment 1231 [...]. The same principles apply to a decision to change the source of funding for a position."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231
Keywords:
abolition of post; amendment to the rules; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds;
Judgment 1673
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The duty to explain a decision or a conclusion "will be discharged even if the reasons are stated in some other text to which there is express or even implied reference, for example where a higher authority endorses the reasoning of a lower one or a recommendation by some advisory body."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1546
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The conclusion is that he had quite sufficient warning [two written warnings in addition to oral warnings and written comments on the quality of his work] about shortcomings in his performance and the risk of non-renewal. So it is immaterial whether the earlier criticisms are the same as those on which the decision rests. Furthermore, although the Organization's warning was sufficient, it was at liberty to cite prior incidents as well."
Keywords:
conduct; contract; discretion; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 1544
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A firm line of precedent has it that though a fixed-term appointment ends automatically at the scheduled date of expiry the staff member must be told of the true grounds for non-renewal and given reasonable notice of it even if the contract does not expressly so require."
Keywords:
case law; contract; date of notification; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1416
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant charged the organization with breach of equal treatment when it assigned her to a new career path. The answer the Director-General gave her was ambiguous. "The Tribunal cannot therefore review the Director-General's reason for declining to put her on the same path as the other official, nor tell whether cern abided by the rules on fairness. Not having enough evidence to make a ruling, it will quash the impugned decision, though it will not order cern to put her on path iv as she asks."
Keywords:
assignment; career; equal treatment; equity; grounds; judicial review; promotion; refusal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
