Competence (84, 822, 823,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competence
Total judgments found: 108
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Judgment 2994
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Amendment of the rules concerning the health insurance coverage of spouses gainfully employed outside the Office.
"[I]n the absence of a specified procedure or some other provision indicating to the contrary, an internal appeals body necessarily has power to determine what procedure should be followed when multiple appeals are filed with respect to the same issue."
Keywords:
competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2957
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contestation of a performance appraisal report.
"[T]he Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Committee has the authority to recommend that a case be sent back for review or, in an appropriate case, to recommend a precise remedy."
Keywords:
competence; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;
Judgment 2915
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The fact that the Director General did not sign the letter [informing the complainant that her request was denied] does not mean that he did not take the relevant decision. The signing of the letter by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] is consistent with normal personnel practice. Moreover, the presumption of regularity applies in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary."
Keywords:
competence; evidence; executive head; formal requirements; practice; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The first argument advanced by the complainant in relation to the decision to suspend him from duty is that the Deputy Secretary-General had no authority to take such a decision but, rather, as the Secretary-General was an interested party, the question of suspension should have been referred to the ITU Council [...]. It is correct that it was incumbent on the Secretary-General to refrain from taking any decision concerning the incidents that occurred in his office [...]. As stated in Judgment 179, "his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds". Although Staff Rule 10.1.3 refers only to suspension by the Secretary-General, the doctrine of necessity allows that, where there is a conflict of interest, authority is to be granted to some other appropriate person. However, that does not mean that the question should have been referred to the Council. That body has certain powers with respect to elected officials, but not with respect to unelected officials. As an elected official and as the next most senior official, the Deputy Secretary-General was the appropriate person to exercise authority with respect to the incidents that occurred [...], even if the relevant provision did not so provide."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; competence; decision; executive body; no provision; recusal;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2363
97th Session, 2004
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;
Judgment 2324
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"[P]ursuant to Rule 5.3.01, only the Director General had authority to place the complainant on special leave with full pay [...] However, [...] it was the Director of Administration, not the Director-General, who wrote to the complainant and informed her that he was 'placing [her] on special leave with pay until further notice'. That letter contains no reference whatsoever to the Director General or to any discussions with the latter. And although, in her request for review, the complainant expressly contended that the Director of Administration had taken the decision in question, the Director-General did not say anything to the contrary in his reply. [...] That correspondence gives rise to the very strong inference that the decision was taken by the Director of Administration and not by the Director General."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Interim Staff Rule 5.3.01
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; evidence; executive head; special leave;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability because the matter was not referred to the Appeals Council. "In the present case, that procedure was not and clearly could not have been followed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the Director-General, stripped of his functions, could have appealed to the Appeals Council established under his own authority, against a decision of the Conference of the States parties, with a view to obtaining a final decision by the new Director-General. [...] An appeal to the Appeals Council was inconceivable, and the impugned decision was clearly a final decision - within the meaning of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute [...] in that situation, a direct appeal to the Tribunal [...] was clearly the only remedy available to the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; competence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; member state; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;
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 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2089
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
From 1986 to 2000 the organisation followed the practice followed by the coordinated organizations in adjusting both salaries and pensions in accordance with both cost-of-living and standard-of-living adjustments. In July 2000 it made a cost-of-living adjustment mandatory for pensions even if no such adjustment is made to salaries, but no provision is made for standard-of-living adjustment to pensions. "It is simply untenable to argue that the [organisation] could, by following the practice of the coordinated organizations in previous years, bind itself to do so for all time [...] There can be no doubt that the same body that had the authority to adopt [the] decision [to follow the practice followed by the coordinated organizations] had equally the authority to decide to withdraw it."
Keywords:
adjustment; amendment to the rules; competence; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; decision quashed; executive body; no provision; organisation's duties; pension; pension adjustment system; period; practice; salary;
Judgment 2063
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 1839
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. The methodology [of the International Civil Service Commission] provides in paragraph 6 that, though it is preferable to have representatives of both management and staff take part, the technical requirements will still be met even if one side prefers not to; so that actual participation by both sides is not a requirement. Nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1838
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1834
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant [pleads] that the decision to terminate [her appointment] was not 'initiated' by the Director-General, as Staff Rule 110.04 required. [I]n the context of the Staff Rule the word 'initiated' does not mean that the Director-General himself must be the first person in the administration to take any action at all; it simply requires that the action, when taken, be on the Director-General's behalf and with his prior approval."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF RULE 110.04
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 1832
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member who appeals to the wrong [internal appeals] body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. Time and again the Tribunal has held that, though rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must be construed with common sense and not set traps for the staff member: see Judgment1734 [and] any penalty for breaking such a rule must be reasonably fitting. [...] When there are two authorities that may be competent it is easy enough for one to forward a misdirected appeal to the other. If the staff member filed it in time, even with the wrong authority, then it will be receivable, and that authority will simply forward it without ado to the other one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
competence; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Insofar as the seven Member States continued to be jointly responsible for the Staff Insurance Scheme (SIS) "the delegation of authority was quite proper. What is more, it was quite understandable since the seven countries still owed the serving and the retired staff joint responsibility for safeguarding their entitlements. That is how the three departing countries were associated in the decisions of the future of the SIS. Besides, the decisions were unanimous, and there can have been no procedural flaw in the mere attendance - which was highly desirable anyway - of representatives of the former Member States as well." The plea of incompetence must, therefore, be rejected.
Keywords:
competence; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive body; member state; procedural flaw;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
