Refusal (631,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Refusal
Total judgments found: 229
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
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 2107
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that he should be considered as a fixed-term staff member cannot be sustained. The complainant was recruited as a short-term staff member, without having to go through a competition process; he accepted several contract renewals. It was within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide during the years that the complainant was with the organization whether to renew each short-term contract or offer him a fixed-term contract. There is no basis on which the complainant can claim to be treated retroactively as if he had a fixed-term contract. He was at all times a short-term staff member."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; claim; competition; complainant; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; fixed-term; non-retroactivity; official; participation; refusal; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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 2079
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant, who was only fit to work 75 per cent of normal hours, was able to work only as a staff representative. Such activities were restricted to 50 per cent of normal working hours but he nevertheless "request[ed] to work at 75 per cent on staff committee duties [which] was in fact a request to devote 100 per cent of office time to that function. As such it was manifestly inadmissible."
Keywords:
complainant; limits; medical fitness; part-time employment; refusal; request by a party; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2074
91st Session, 2001
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. "The complainant claims the right of preference which is accorded, when candidates are equally competent, to internal applicants [...] In view of its objective, which is to secure the best possible employees for an organisation, equality of competence applies to all the abilities required of an employee, both professional and personal. The Secretary-General did not overstep his discretionary authority by concluding that the overall aptitude of the candidates was not equal. The plea must therefore fail."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; condition; discretion; executive head; internal candidate; no cause of action; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; refusal; right;
Judgment 2072
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant benefited from a voluntary separation programme that the organization had had to implement because of financial difficulties. He is challenging the refusal to consider his request for re-employment. "The organization cannot be taken to task for not considering him for [vacant] posts for which he had not applied, or for not offering him another [post] while it was still in financial straits."
Keywords:
agreed termination; budgetary reasons; competition; failure to answer claim; participation; post; refusal; reinstatement; request by a party; separation from service; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2063
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal is fully competent to consider whether the Office is right in maintaining that [the insurance broker] Van Breda correctly exercised its authority in rejecting the request to meet the cost of transferring the complainant to a convalescent home."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; health insurance; judicial review; refund; refusal; request by a party;
Consideration 8
Extract:
After the complainant underwent surgery, the insurance brokers refused to cover his convalescence in a home. "In order to assess any physical injury suffered by the complainant, it is necessary to ascertain the later consequences for his health of the refusal to meet the costs of his admission to a convalescent home, and the fact that he did not as a result stay in such a home. These are purely medical matters which [...] need to be referred to the Invalidity Committee".
Keywords:
claim; competence; consequence; health insurance; illness; medical board; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund; refusal; request by a party;
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 2051
91st Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant had applied for another post within the organization. While he was on leave in order to prepare his daughter's wedding, he was invited by telephone to attend an interview within two days. The complainant having stated he would not be able to attend the interview in that timeframe, his name was deleted from the list of candidates taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. "The failure to give reasonable notice to the complainant to attend an interview by refusing to take into account the family circumstances of the complainant at the time, followed by the elimination of the complainant from consideration when he could not attend, constitutes [a] flaw in the procedure adopted by the administration in respect of the selection for this post."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; due process; flaw; notice; post; refusal; selection board;
Judgment 2032
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"If a Member State in breach of its international obligations taxes the exempt income of a staff member, the reimbursement of that tax cannot be made to depend upon the grace and favour of that State."
Keywords:
member state; official; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; refund; refusal; salary; tax;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"One of the purposes of staff assessment is surely to put the organisation in funds to protect its employees against States which refuse to recognise their tax-exempt status."
Keywords:
member state; official; privileges and immunities; purpose; refund; refusal; salary; staff assessment; tax;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"If the organisation does not [...] contest the exempt status of the complainant, it is its duty to protect him against the claims of the authorities of a Member State, to reimburse him the amount of tax he has paid to the State, and to employ its own considerable power, authority and influence to have the [...] authorities [of that state] change their position. [...] By requiring him to appeal against his [...] tax assessment while conceding the tax-exempt status of his [...] income the organisation has failed in its duty to the complainant."
Keywords:
member state; official; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; refund; refusal; salary; tax;
Judgment 2025
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complaint was transferred to the field against his liking. At the end of the internal procedure, the organisation decided to reassign him to Headquarters. "It thereby admitted [...] that it had failed to assess the complainant's circumstances with the care required by administrative decisions that affect its staff. That in itself warrants the conclusion that, even though his assignment [to Headquarters] met the complainant's wishes in part, it did not fully make up for the injury caused by his transfer [to the field]. Consequently [...] the Director-General was wrong not to award him the compensation he had claimed."
Keywords:
compensation; executive head; field; headquarters; injury; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reassignment; refusal; request by a party; transfer;
Judgment 2018
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The decision not to confirm the complainant's appointment after a probationary period and to terminate his employment prior to the expiry of his fixed-term contract is quashed. "The complainant is entitled to be reinstated in his post or in one of an equivalent grade with full salary and benefits (including any salary increases which he would have received if he had not been terminated) to the end of his fixed-term appointment."
Keywords:
allowance; condition; contract; date; fixed-term; grade; increase; post; post held by the complainant; probationary period; reconstruction of career; refusal; reinstatement; right; salary; termination of employment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed after a probationary period and his employment was terminated before the expiry of his fixed-term contract. "The Tribunal finds that the Staff Regulations, Rules and Administrative Directives in force at the time do not contain specific provisions for the non-confirmation of fixed-term appointments during or at the end of a probationary period. The provisions relating to the termination of fixed-term appointments without probationary periods therefore apply."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; analogy; applicable law; contract; fixed-term; no provision; probationary period; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
The complainant attacks the decision not to confirm his appointment after a probationary period and to terminate his employment prior to the expiry of his fixed-term contract. "The Tribunal [...] notes that [...] the organisation's legal division advised the administration of the procedure to be followed in terminating the complainant's appointment. Specifically [...] the administration was advised of its obligation to set up a special advisory board to investigate the case and to report back to the Director-General. This advice, like the [...] findings of the Special Advisory Board, appear inexplicably to have been simply ignored by the Director-General. In the circumstances, the impugned decision [...] must be quashed."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; contract; decision quashed; executive head; fixed-term; organisation's duties; probationary period; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; termination of employment;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."
Keywords:
evidence; misconduct; oral proceedings; refusal; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
"In the present case, the President sought, but failed to obtain, the Promotion Board's approval for his proposal to promote Mr C. While the President clearly has a residual discretion not to make promotions which the Board recommends, he may only make promotions in accordance with the Board's recommendations. Since the Board declined to recommend Mr C. for promotion, his promotion was irregular. [...] Furthermore, as the appointing authority, it was clearly inappropriate for the President, having urged the Promotion Board to treat Mr C. as a special case, to then disregard the Board's refusal to recommend the promotion. The decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; discretion; exception; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; refusal;
Judgment 1901
88th Session, 2000
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The organization refused the complainant both an unsuitability and an invalidity pension. It explains that it couldn't arrange for a final medical examination at the time of the complainant's dismissal because he was in prison. "The Tribunal cannot accept that argument. Under Article R II 4.18 of the Staff Regulations, a medical examination is compulsory when a contract is terminated, for whatever reason. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, [the organization] should have been at particular pains to comply with that rule. In the absence of such an examination the pension fund should have determined whether, upon termination of service, the complainant was to be treated as unfit for work because of a deterioration in his physical or mental health which occurred while he was employed by [the organization]. The administrator of the Pension Fund was, therefore, wrong [...] when he refused to consider the complainant's entitlement to a pension for unsuitability." The case was sent back to the Pension Fund.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.18 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF CERN
Keywords:
cern pension fund; disability benefit; due process; incapacity; invalidity; medical examination; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; service-incurred; termination of employment;
Judgment 1899
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Disciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one."
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; official; other; refusal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 1848
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant questions the right of the insurance company to which she is affiliated to contact her physicians directly to seek information. "The law is clear that [the insurance company] is entitled to any information which identifies the nature of the alleged illness and allows it to determine whether the prescribed treatment is appropriate and necessary [...] Of course the complainant is entitled to require that such information only be made available to [the insurance company's] medical adviser and be treated by the latter in confidence but she is not entitled to withhold from them any right of access whatsoever to the required medical information. Her unwillingness to allow such access goes against her duty to deal in good faith with her insurers."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1288
Keywords:
conduct; confidential evidence; elements; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical consultant; medical records; refusal; safeguard; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1834
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The organization placed the complainant on special leave without pay in August 1995, and told her in January 1996 that to stay on special leave she would have to provide medical certificates of inability to go back to work. "The complainant contends that her separation was in breach of her special leave status. [The Tribunal holds that] the receipt of [monthly medical] reports by the chief medical officer was clearly a condition of her maintaining special leave status. Her refusal, without persuasive justification, to submit the requested information [over several months] is a breach of that condition and ample indication of her intent to abandon her post."
Keywords:
abandonment of post; condition; illness; medical certificate; refusal; special leave; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
