Criteria (595,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Criteria
Total judgments found: 106
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has on numerous occasions ruled on the issue of whether an international organisation is bound to comply with general provisions that would infringe the rights of its staff members. The fact that an international organisation belongs to the common system does not enable it to decline or limit its own responsibility towards the members of its staff or lessen the degree of judicial protection it owes them. Any organisation that introduces elements of the common system into its own rules has a duty to ensure that the texts it thereby imports are lawful (on this issue, see Judgment 1265, which refers to Judgments 382 and 825; for more recent examples concerning the duties of the FAO, see Judgments 1713 and 2303). Whilst the Tribunal fully appreciates the difficulties - emphasised by the defendant - that international organisations are liable to face in departing from the salary scales adopted on the basis of ICSC recommendations, it is nevertheless bound to ensure that international law is observed in the relations between the said organisations and their staff, regardless of the external authority from which the decisions taken emanate. Indeed, the case of an organisation having to revise salary scales resulting from recommendations or decisions affecting the common system, whether or not pursuant to a ruling by the competent tribunal, is not without precedent."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1265, 1713, 2303
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; criteria; decision-maker; icsc decision; liability; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 2414
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance evaluation; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
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 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;
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 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"One of the tests which the Tribunal has developed over the years to determine whether or not a post has truly been abolished is to ask whether or not the 'abolition' has resulted in a reduction of the number of staff in the affected department. (See, for example, Judgment 139 [...].) If it has not, the presumption is that all that has taken place is a redistribution of functions among existing posts [...] and not the abolition of one or more posts".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 139
Keywords:
abolition of post; case law; consequence; criteria; definition; iloat; judicial review; post; reorganisation; staff reduction;
Judgment 2086
92nd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In order to be awarded a personal promotion the complainant must have completed 18 years of continuous service under a fixed-term or permanent contract. "The [organisation] is arguing that [...] in determining whether the complainant fulfilled [such a] requirement [...] reference must be made to clauses of the contracts which came into force unopposed, [including] short-term contracts [...] The approach is too rigid [...] The issue was [not] one of applying or interpreting the complainant's early appointments [...] It is a matter of applying a rule which is currently in force and which concerns the legal nature of former contractual relationships between the parties. In other words, in the light of the current rule, what type of appointment did the early contracts establish? It should be noted that the name they were given will not necessarily express the actual relationship".
Keywords:
applicable law; condition; contract; criteria; definition; effective date; enforcement; fixed-term; interpretation; permanent appointment; personal promotion; provision; reckoning; short-term; working hours;
Judgment 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A quantitative difference in duties rather than a difference in their nature or intrinsic importance is not a decisive criterion on which to base a difference in grade between two officials who perform exactly the same duties."
Keywords:
criteria; difference; grade; official; post; post classification; post description;
Judgment 1996
89th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"In Judgment 1821 the Tribunal recalled that where a 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 (see Judgment 1682 [...]). [...] However, departure from the index given as an orientation in the Staff Regulations requires more than just a statement of proper reasons. In order to protect staff against arbitrariness, the criteria relied on to deviate from the orientation suggested by the external index must be objective, adequate and known to the staff (see Judgment 1912, under 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1821, 1912
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; burden of proof; criteria; duty to substantiate decision; interpretation; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1990
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The basic rules to be respected [in a competition] include the right of all applicants to equal treatment. The organisation may make no distinction between candidates on the basis of criteria - language, for example - which are not referred to in the entry requirements (see Judgment 1158, [...] under 4 et seq)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; due process; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the competition, the English-speaking and French-speaking candidates were not in the same situation, so criteria were needed that took account of the differences. The matter becomes more complex if account is taken of candidates whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. [...] Since one of the requirements of the competition - and the post in question - was a good knowledge of the two main working languages, it was not unfair to provide for tests in one language only and apply an adequate correction factor to all candidates who were non-English-speaking. Such a solution redresses the balance and goes some way to ensuring equality between the candidates. Provided that it really is adequate, a correction factor does not impair the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; compensatory measure; competition; criteria; difference; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications; safeguard;
Judgment 1912
88th Session, 2000
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The methodologies adopted by international organisations for setting and adjusting the remuneration of the staff, in principle, must enable results to be obtained that are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood [...] when the applicable method uses an external index, [...] not with a view to requiring the competent body to conform automatically to the index, but only as a simple orientation', which in itself is not a breach of any rights, the staff can only be protected against arbitrariness if the criteria used in deviating from the suggested orientation of the external index are objective, adequate and known to the staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; bias; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; duty to inform; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1871
87th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that the Director-General gave paramount importance to the principle of geographic distribution, which resulted in him selecting the applicant who was second in the list recommended by the Selection Committee because that applicant was a national of an 'under-represented' country, while the complainant, who was in first place, was a national of an 'equitably represented' country. Analysis of the [Constitution, General Rules and Manual of the organization as well as] the facts of the case show that the Director-General was mistaken in his interpretation of these provisions. The Constitution [...] clearly states that the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence' are of paramount importance in appointing staff. The Selection Committee is under the obligation to recommend for selection the candidate whose qualifications most closely meet the requirements of the post. Therefore the essential qualifications required are the priority criterion. Consideration of other criteria, including seniority of service and geographic distribution, which appear to be of a subsidiary nature, is only envisaged where several candidates are equally well qualified."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; criteria; geographical distribution; nationality; recommendation; selection board; seniority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1866
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant considers that he is discriminated against in comparison with his colleagues who live in towns where the organisation subsidises creche places. "The principle of equality of treatment only applies between staff members in a similar situation. In the material case, staff members whose place of residence is Munich or The Hague, where there are subsidised creches, benefit from the same treatment. But staff members, such as the complainant, who decide to reside in another location and do not wish to place their child in these subsidised creches, are not in a similar situation."
Keywords:
criteria; dependent child; difference; equal treatment; general principle; residence; social benefits;
Judgment 1865
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 10
Extract:
"Article 46(5) of the Service Regulations states that 'for a period of two years from the date on which assignment to reserve status takes effect a permanent employee shall have priority for reinstatement in any post corresponding to his grade which may fall vacant or be created, provided that he possesses the necessary qualifications and ability.' The obligation of [the organisation] is not to reinstate the official who has been assigned to reserve status, but to make all the necessary efforts for his reinstatement. In other words, it is not an obligation as to the outcome, but as to the means employed to achieve the outcome."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 46(5) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
condition; creation of post; criteria; organisation's duties; priority; qualifications; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 1855
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 5
Extract:
The complainant appeals against the Executive Head's decision to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the organisation to grant him special leave to attend a two-day training course. "It is common ground that the decision as to whether or not to grant a staff member special leave to attend training courses is discretionary. [T]he obligations under Article 29 of the Service Regulations to facilitate training may involve different considerations when one looks at the desirability of the staff member's taking such training, and when one has regard to the effect of the staff member's absence on the functioning of the service. In the present case, the refusal of special leave was justified by the growing backlog of [work]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 29 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; decision; discretion; enforcement; organisation's interest; special leave; staff regulations and rules; training;
Judgment 1849
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that, in accordance with its jurisprudence, if an official receives an overpayment by mistake it should be reimbursed. Nevertheless, the organization should take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment. [...] In the Tribunal's opinion there is no indebtedness by the complainant to the organization. It was responsible for making payments on behalf of the United Nations, but has been fully reimbursed. The organization therefore, was not entitled to withhold the grants due or make deductions from salary under rule 380.5.2 since the complainant was not indebted to it."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 380.5.2 OF WHO
Keywords:
amount; criteria; debt; deduction; equity; exception; recovery of overpayment; refund; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 1827
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; judicial review; limits; procedural flaw; promotion; qualifications; satisfactory service; selection board; work appraisal;
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 1814
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Though the Director General does have discretion [as to who may be considered as a dependent child], the staff member must be made aware of any criteria he is applying." (See Judgment 1204.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204
Keywords:
criteria; dependant; dependent child; discretion; duty to inform; executive head; family allowance; limits; organisation's duties; parent;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
