Mistaken conclusion (569,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mistaken conclusion
Total judgments found: 56
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
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 1752
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[The Tribunal] may not replace qualified medical opinion with its own, though it may review the procedure and say whether the doctors' findings show any factual mistake or inconsistency, or overlook an essential fact, or draw a plainly wrong conclusion from the evidence."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disregard of essential fact; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1713
84th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In choosing figures of local pay for the purpose of applying Flemming there can be no single hard-and-fast approach. As was held in Judgment 1265, the [ICSC] must be allowed some discretion over method, even though the Tribunal will still review the exercise of it. The decision impugned may not stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1265
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; flemming principle; icsc decision; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; salary;
Judgment 1384
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant was accused of removing computer equipment from the work place. For that reason the organization decided not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The decision not to renew the complainant's contract was based on loss of confidence consequent upon the finding of misconduct. That finding was based on an error of law as to the burden of proof; rules of procedure relating to the right of defence were seriously violated; essential facts were not taken into consideration; and clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts. so the finding cannot stand, and the plea of loss of confidence which the organization based thereon must be rejected."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; disregard of essential fact; evidence; fixed-term; misconduct; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; right to reply;
Judgment 1324
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
See Judgment 525, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 525
Keywords:
abuse of power; amendment to the rules; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; formal flaw; home; home leave; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1292
75th Session, 1993
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"When the Director-General asks the Swiss government to confer diplomatic status, he is exercising his discretion. [...] So the Tribunal will not interfere with his decision unless he has committed some procedural or formal error or a mistake of law or of fact, or applied some wrong principle, or drawn illogical conclusions from the evidence before him."
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; privileges and immunities; procedural flaw; status of complainant;
Judgment 1284
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Precedent has it [...] that the Tribunal may not replace the Board's assessment of medical questions with its own. But it goes further than that: the Tribunal does have full competence to say whether there was due process and whether the medical findings show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence."
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; report;
Judgment 1281
75th Session, 1993
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to the case law the grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation. So the Tribunal will not interfere with the decision impugned in this case unless it was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooks some material fact, or is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts. Moreover, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of the facts for the Secretary-General's."
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; competence; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; post classification; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1273
75th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A decision not to renew an appointment, though discretionary, must be taken for proper reasons that are notified to the staff member. It will be unlawful if it was not taken by the competent authority and in line with the set rules of procedure, if there was a mistake of law or of fact or abuse of authority, or if some clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; competence; contract; decision; decision-maker; discretion; due process; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties;
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;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the ESO drew mistaken conclusions from the facts in that it was not free to have him perform tasks other than those provided for under the terms of his contract [...]. A description of the complainant's post [...] that he himself signed included what were called 'background activities', and they went beyond the tasks that had originally been required of him. The Tribunal is satisfied that by confining himself to [certain tasks] he displayed a lack of commitment which properly put at issue the question as to whether the observatory should extend his contract." The ESO did not draw plainly mistaken conclusions about his performance.
Keywords:
contract; decision; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; post description; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1251
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant was accused of misappropriating funds and summarily dismissed for misconduct. The Tribunal holds that though the Appeals Board "recorded in its report the organization's submissions on the facts, it did not come to any conclusion on them and indeed said it was 'extremely difficult to impute the misfeasances committed to the complainant'. The Director-General's decision is thus flawed with the wrong assumption that the Board had made findings adverse to the complainant."
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; flaw; internal appeals body; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 1246
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has held on several occasions, for example in Judgment 1183, a decision by the Director-General not to confirm the appointment of a probationer 'is a discretionary one. Its power of review being limited, the Tribunal will set the decision aside only if it finds a mistake of fact or of law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or a clearly mistaken conclusion on the evidence, or neglect of an essential fact or abuse of authority.'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1183
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; probationary period; procedural flaw; refusal;
Judgment 1230
74th Session, 1993
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The defendant maintains that the complainant did not meet the two-month time limit for lodging appeals and failed to exhaust the internal means of redress. The Committee was of the view that, in this case, exceptional circumstances warranted waiving the time limit and allowing the appeal. The defendant contends that the Committee's decision was not binding on the Agency. "Only where the Committee's appraisal of the circumstances is flagrantly wrong or based on plainly mistaken facts may the Director General disregard it, and even then his decision will be subject to review by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
condition; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Agency granted the complainant only a short contract renewal, refusing to renew the contract until the date of his retirement. According to the defendant, this decision was based on information in its files which indicated that the complainant wasn't available after a certain date. Now it has been established that the complainant said he would be available as long as the Agency wished. "A decision by an international organization to grant only a short extension of appointment or none at all, though it is discretionary, must still be based on correct findings of fact."
Keywords:
contract; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; organisation;
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 1161
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As the case law makes plain - for example, Judgments 687 [...] and 736 [...] - a decision not to confirm a probationer's appointment is a matter of discretion for the [executive head] and the Tribunal will not substitute its own judgment for the organisation's in matters that require such exercise of discretion. 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): 687, 736
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment;
Judgment 1049
69th Session, 1990
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants, who applied for a vacant post put up for competition, wish to have the results set aside. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the selection procedure shows several serious flaws, of which at least two are fatal: in breach of Manual provision II.3.340 no short-list had been drawn up and the Director-General drew had drawn mistaken conclusions from the evidence before him in dismissing the Appeals Boards' findings of improprieties.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PROVISION II.3.340
Keywords:
application for quashing; competition; flaw; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; selection board;
Judgment 1037
69th Session, 1990
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
After his appointment was extended several times and he received favourable staff reports, the complainant was denied the renewal of his appointment. That decision was based on a lack of leadership qualities, even though these were not mentioned in the requirements set out in his job description. As the decision mistakenly took account of facts unrelated to the duties assigned to him, it is tainted by a fatal flaw and the Tribunal will set it aside.
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; mistaken conclusion; non-renewal of contract; post description; qualifications; work appraisal;
Judgment 724
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
Keywords:
bias; different appraisals; mistaken conclusion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 722
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-7
Extract:
At the start of 1980 and 1981 the complainant's production target was the same as the previous year; his productivity was the same in 1980 as in 1979 and higher in 1981. Under the circumstances, having attained his production target in 1980 and 1981, the complainant rightly alleges a discrepancy between the two reports. The Tribunal holds that the complainant was under no duty to increase his output of his own accord.
Keywords:
different appraisals; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; output; performance report;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
Keywords:
bias; different appraisals; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 687
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Although the complainant's performance showed improvement by the end of an extended period of probation, the organisation dismissed him. The Tribunal holds that the extension of probation gave him reason to believe that if his work was found satisfactory he would get appointed. The President drew clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. His decision is set aside and the complainant is referred back to the organisation for determination of his rights on reinstatement in its employ as from the date of his dismissal.
Keywords:
extension of contract; legitimate expectation; mistaken conclusion; probationary period; reconstruction of career; reinstatement; satisfactory service; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
