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 1405
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was charged with unsuitability for the international civil service and the Organization decided not to renew his appointment. "The WHO's reasons for not renewing his appointment might have warranted disciplinary proceedings [...]. Though in no way bound to take disciplinary action against him, it was of course free to take into account any evidence of behaviour that led it to believe - as it does - that he was unfit for international service."
Keywords:
conduct; contract; disciplinary procedure; fitness for international civil service; grounds; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; decision; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; grounds; judicial review; no provision; official; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; request by a party; subsidiary; written rule;
Judgment 1262
75th Session, 1993
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The case law has made it consistently plain that a decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment, being discretionary, may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority. Moreover, when the reason given for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not replace the organisation's assessment of the complainant's fitness for his duties with its own."
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; contract; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; procedural flaw; qualifications; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1247
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's termination has not been justified on the grounds of serious misconduct. "Reinstatement is no longer possible. The Tribunal therefore awards him, in accordance with Article VIII of its Statute, compensation in a sum of 600 dollars, the full amount of remuneration due for the rest of his contract."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
compensation; contract; grounds; iloat statute; reinstatement; salary; serious misconduct; termination of employment; tribunal;
Judgment 1226
74th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3, 7 and 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge decisions by the Director-General confirming the abolition of free after-service medical cover. They allege breach of acquired rights and contend that the FAO's financial position did not warrant such measures. "The Tribunal will not compare the options open to the FAO in the area of financial policy since it might ignore the realities that the FAO has to take into account. All the Tribunal need do is acknowledge that it was because of the financial plight of the scheme and its own that the organization decided to do away with free coverage for pensioners. The change does cause the complainants detriment. [...] But that alone does not amount to breach of any acquired right. First, the effect of the change was to put all fao pensioners on a par. [...] Secondly, there were transitional measures to lighten the impact of the change [...]. Since the change was made by way of rules, and because of the reasons for it, the complainants have suffered no breach of any acquired right despite the injury to their interests."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; discretion; grounds; health insurance; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical expenses; organisation's interest; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1175
73rd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the case law makes plain - for example, judgments 736 [...] and 1161 [...] - a decision not to confirm a probationer's appointment is a matter of discretion for the President. Although the Tribunal may review the lawfulness of dismissal of a probationer, the nature of the decision is such that its power of review is limited. It will set aside the decision only if there was a mistake of fact or law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 736, 1161
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; contract; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment;
Judgment 1163
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
FAO Manual paragraph 308.411 provides for the award of a within-grade salary increment to officials whose service, during a "qualifying period", is satisfactory. The complainant had her annual increment withheld. "Although difficulties were found in the complainant's attitude towards other staff, [her performance reports] do not show such a pattern of conduct as to impair the quality of her work on the assignments she was given. [...] The conclusion is that the conditions in the case law for withholding an increment were not met and that the organization committed a mistake of law in construing and applying 308.411."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 308.411
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247
Keywords:
accumulation; case law; condition; conduct; enforcement; grounds; increment; increment withheld; interpretation; satisfactory service; staff regulations and rules; step; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 1162
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The wording of Manual paragraph 314.221 is imprecise about what sort of conduct will warrant a warning: "it speaks of 'failure to perform prescribed duties in a satisfactory manner'. To explain how the paragraph is to be applied in practice, however, the paragraph gives in brackets some illustrations of cases of such failure [...] The draughtsman gives in brackets what are no more than examples intended to help in construing the text: they are not cumulative conditions for applying it."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221
Keywords:
accumulation; condition; conduct; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The reason the FAO gives for them was her failure to maintain "harmonious working relationships", which is one of the cases mentioned in Manual paragraph 314.221. "Such a reason affords a sound basis in law for the warnings and is in itself sufficient provided that it rests on true allegations of fact. The complainant is therefore mistaken in her view that there must also have been [others] since the only grounds given for the warnings are factually correct and warrant the impugned decisions, the complainant's objections must fail."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221
Keywords:
accumulation; condition; conduct; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;
Judgment 1129
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There will indeed be misuse of authority where an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation's best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve." There is no evidence that the organization, which followed the prescribed procedure and did its utmost to find another post for the complainant, dismissed him for reasons other than those linked to the financial crisis it was facing.
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; budgetary reasons; definition; grounds; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment 1128
71st Session, 1991
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 675, "an international organisation is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it may not 'be arbitrary or irrational'; there 'must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 675
Keywords:
contract; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; limits; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; organisation's interest;
Judgment 1123
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article 65, which merely cites examples of circumstances warranting adjustment in pay, is not exhaustive. There may be adjustment for other reasons, whether they be peculiar to the organisation or attributable to outside factors." In the instant case the reasons Eurocontrol gave come within the ambit of the provision.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 65 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adjustment; analogy; criteria; enforcement; grounds; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of a 1.53 per cent "reduction" applied to his pay in pursuance of a decision by Eurocontrol's Permanent Commission to bring in a 5 per cent differential between pay in the European Communities and within the organisation. The Tribunal holds that "the objection that there has been no statement of the reasons is unsound: the staff have known all along the reasons for the adjustments, which have been fully discussed in the context of the cases. There was therefore no need to state reasons for the individual decisions [...]. The Tribunal may [not] review the reasons of policy underlying the general decision." Besides, the reasons fall within the ambit of Article 65.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 65 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adjustment; competence of tribunal; duty to substantiate decision; general decision; grounds; individual decision; judicial review; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1118
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The complainants seek the quashing of a 1.25 per cent "reduction" in the repayment of education expenses in keeping with a decision taken by Eurocontrol's Permanent Commission to bring in a 5 per cent differential between net pay at Eurocontrol and net pay in the European Communities. The Tribunal holds that "the objection that there has been no statement of the reasons is unsound: the staff have known all along the reasons for the adjustments, which have been fully discussed in the context of the cases. There was therefore no need to state reasons for the individual decisions [...]. The Tribunal may [not] review the reasons of policy underlying the general decision." Besides, the reasons fall within the ambit of Article 65.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 65 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adjustment; competence of tribunal; duty to substantiate decision; education expenses; general decision; grounds; individual decision; judicial review; reduction of salary; refund; salary;
Consideration 19
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1123, consideration 8.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 65 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1123
Keywords:
adjustment; analogy; enforcement; grounds; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1113
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
After carrying out a staff review, the organization confirmed the grading of the complainant's post at grade G.5. "The reasons for CERN's decision in this case are evident from the file, the implication in the words used being that it accepted the 'views and recommendations' on the file that there should be no upgrading."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; post classification; recommendation;
Judgment 1109
71st Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant objects to the decision to refuse him personal promotion under Circular 334. The Tribunal holds that the fact "that the explanation came in this case from the Director-General himself [rather than from the Selection Board as required by paragraph 14 of the Circular] is not [...] a procedural flaw. Paragraph 14 is unenforceable because the Board can explain only its own recommendation and because the text might require it to explain even a decision that ran counter to that recommendation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985
Keywords:
administrative instruction; grounds; personal promotion; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal;
Judgment 1054
69th Session, 1990
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"The staff member needs to know the grounds for the decision* so that he can defend his rights and interests [...]. What is more, the reasons need to be known for the purposes of judicial review".
*The decision in question is the rejection of the complainants' applications for "early departure".
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; early retirement; grounds; judicial review; purpose; refusal; retirement;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In these cases the burden of CERN's obligation was at its lightest since the benefits [the complainants were denied] of early departure were conferred ex gratia and the purpose of the scheme was to meet a need for structural reform which the organization is the sole judge of. Yet it did not discharge even that minimal obligation. And its omission is compounded by its failure to keep its explicit promise to give every unsuccessful applicant a written explanation".
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; early retirement; grounds; material damages; promise; refusal;
Judgment 1047
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"A decision by the Director-General not to renew an appointment is a discretionary one, but his discretion is not unfettered. Since one of the reasons he gave for the decision impugned in this case is unfounded and the other reason is tied in with it, the decision must be set aside."
Keywords:
contract; discretion; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 1046
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The organization alleges that the reason it put an end to the complainant's appointment was the expiry of his contract. The Tribunal is satisfied that it failed to extend his appointment because his performance was considered unsatisfactory. "The Director-General's decision confirming the complainant's termination must be set aside because he was not separated for the reason it gave."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1018
69th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is challenging a decision to transfer him. "The Tribunal is [...] satisfied on the evidence that there was no abuse of the Secretary-General's authority. So far from being arbitrary the transfer was ordered on objective grounds and in the interests of more efficient management".
Keywords:
grounds; judicial review; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 972
66th Session, 1989
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Secretary-General not only omitted to give due weight to the complainant's excellent record of service over a period of seven years, but also [...] overlooked essential facts. The five reasons stated are based on mistakes of fact which could have been put right if the Secretary-General had agreed to give him a hearing. In so holding the Tribunal is not interfering in the actual management of the organization. Because of those flaws his decision not to renew the complainant's appointment must be set aside."
Keywords:
contract; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; grounds; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; satisfactory service;
Judgment 946
65th Session, 1988
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
"In this case the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was tainted with several fatal flaws. First, the decision was not taken by the competent authority. [...] What was even more serious was the failure to inform the complainant of the reasons for the decision."
Keywords:
competence; contract; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; flaw; grounds; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
