Recommendation (90,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Recommendation
Total judgments found: 73
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 2742
105th Session, 2008
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 44
Extract:
"The Tribunal issues binding orders, not recommendations as sought by the complainant. Additionally, the Tribunal has no power to order a party to apologise."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; vested competence;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant did not receive the Reports Board's recommendation, which constituted the basis of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The Tribunal considers that in the present case the complainant is entitled to see the Reports Board's recommendation, an essential document on which the Administration based its decision not to renew his contract. By withholding that document the Organization deprived the complainant of an item of evidence that was essential for the preparation of his defence and the Tribunal of a document enabling it to exercise its power of review.
Accordingly there are grounds for ordering further submissions in order that the file may be supplemented with a copy of the Reports Board's recommendation, as requested by the complainant."
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; complainant; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 2699
104th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that when rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeals body that favours a complainant, the final decision-maker must give clear and cogent reasons for such a decision (see Judgments 2092, 2261, 2347 and 2355)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; recommendation; refusal;
Judgment 2698
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was notified of a number of serious charges against him and was informed that he would be suspended from duty with pay until the end of the investigation into the charges. "The Director General did not [...] implement the Appeal Board's recommendation that he should conclude with all due speed the investigation into the allegations of serious misconduct against the complainant and should take a decision within a reasonable time. In fact he did not conduct the investigation with the dispatch required by the Tribunal's case law and by the circumstances of the case, and he thus caused an unjustified delay in the handling of the case. The explanations given by the Organization in its submissions are irrelevant, particularly because they do not indicate that the completion of the investigation was delayed through any fault on the part of the complainant.
By prolonging an essentially temporary measure beyond a reasonable time, without any valid grounds, thereby placing the complainant in a situation of uncertainty as to his further career, the Organization caused him moral injury which must be redressed by awarding him the amount of 10,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
allowance; breach; career; case law; compensation; consequence; decision; delay; executive head; grounds; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; provisional measures; reasonable time; recommendation; serious misconduct; suspensive action;
Judgment 2667
104th Session, 2008
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The duty to act independently and impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final formal decision in proceedings, but also on bodies responsible for giving an advisory opinion or for making a recommendation to this authority, a fortiori where the recommendation is a formal part of the decision-making process (see Judgment 2315, under 27)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; decision; disciplinary procedure; due process; independence; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;
Judgment 2556
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation adopted a new method of calculating replacement days granted to inspectors returning from a Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities inspection because of the inconsistency between the practice with regard to replacement days and the terms of Administrative Directive AD/PER/12. The complainant contested that new method. Because the earlier practice had become in its view "well established", the Appeals Council recommended that the appeal be upheld, the previous practice reinstated and the replacement days that should have been granted in accordance with that practice reimbursed. The Tribunal considers that "[a]s the practice of granting a replacement day for each Saturday, Sunday or official OPCW holiday falling during an inspection period is inconsistent with the terms of AD/PER/12, that practice cannot be elevated to the status of law so as to entitle the complainant to additional replacement days, as was seemingly thought by the Appeals Council."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: OPCW Administrative Directive AD/PER/12
Keywords:
administrative instruction; advisory opinion; compensatory measure; difference; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; practice; precedence of rules; provision; public holiday; reckoning; recommendation; refund; right; written rule;
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;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainants' second plea is that the methodology applied by the General Assembly [to review salary levels] does not satisfy the requirements of stability, foreseeability and transparency established by the case law. [...] Given that the application of that methodology can yield results as different as those obtained, on the one hand, by the ICSC, and on the other, by the Fifth Committee and subsequently the General Assembly, one may legitimately query its foreseeability. However, it must be borne in mind that a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which was entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle."
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; icsc decision; interpretation; noblemaire principle; organisation's duties; rate; recommendation; salary; scale;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2373
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The decision to redefine the functions of a post is the prerogative of the Director-General, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post."
Keywords:
decision; definition; discretion; executive head; post; post description; qualifications; recommendation;
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2352
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant's post was abolished and his appointment terminated. "It is clear from the [applicable] provisions that [...] the Staff Committee had to be consulted before the decision was taken to terminate the complainant's appointment. The purpose of consulting an advisory body, prior to terminating an official's appointment, is to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head. The Tribunal takes the view that it is established, by the evidence [...], that the Staff Committee was indeed consulted regarding the suppression of the [complainant's] post [...]. However, it considers that the Committee was not formally consulted with regard to the intention to terminate the complainant's appointment. [...] As the impugned decision was taken in breach of the applicable rules, it must be held unlawful and the Tribunal need not rule on the complainant's other pleas."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; condition; consequence; decision; due process; executive head; flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; purpose; recommendation; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
The complainant submits that the behaviour of the Administration towards her amounted to harassment since she got only a one-step salary increase, rather than the two proposed by her supervisor, and only a two-year extension of contract rather than the customary three years. The Tribunal considers that such decisions "were decisions which the Secretary-General was entitled to reach in the exercise of his discretion. That being so, such decisions can only be viewed as part of a campaign of harassment if the other events upon which the complainant relies give rise to an inference that these were taken because of hostility, ill will or other improper motive. The complainant has failed to prove harassment."
Keywords:
burden of proof; cumulative decisions; decision; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; extension of contract; grounds; harassment; increment; lack of evidence; recommendation; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 28-29
Extract:
The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [EMBL] Staff Rules and Regulations do not provide an internal appeal mechanism for a person in the complainant's position. The Tribunal has frequently commented on the desirability and utility of internal appeal procedures which not only make the Tribunal's task easier but also substantially reduce its workload by bringing a satisfactory and less expensive resolution to many disputes at an earlier stage. In any case, the Tribunal remains the ultimate arbiter of the rights of international civil servants and it can, and will, exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; last instance; no provision; official; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; right; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;
Judgment 2306
96th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10 and 15
Extract:
As a general rule, damages for breach of contract, including wrongful termination of a contract of employment, are confined to the amount necessary to put the injured party in the position he or she would have enjoyed if the contract had been performed. Thus, ordinarily, in the case of wrongful termination, an employee is entitled to material damages consisting of salary and entitlements up to the date on which the contract would normally have expired. In this case "the Appeals Committee found that 'the [complainant's] dignity had been harmed by the administrative procedure leading to termination and that some redress for the material and moral injury he suffered [was] warranted' [...]. Notwithstanding that finding, the Committee only recommended payment of an amount equivalent to salary and allowances until the end of the complainant's fixed-term contract. As already explained, he was entitled to that amount for material damage. Thus, the effect of the recommendation of the Appeals Committee was to deny the complainant compensation for moral injury notwithstanding its finding that his dignity had been harmed. That was an error of law and, as the Director-General's decision was based on the recommendations of the Appeals Committee, it necessarily involves the same error of law."
Keywords:
abuse of power; allowance; amount; breach; compensation; consequence; contract; decision; effect; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; internal appeals body; material injury; misuse of authority; moral injury; official; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; reconstruction of career; respect for dignity; right; salary; termination of employment;
Judgment 2297
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2285
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that it need not ascertain whether procedural irregularities were committed by the Ombudsperson, since the latter merely put forward a proposal which did not constitute a decision and which was addressed exclusively to the complainant, inviting her to relinquish her management responsibilities, that is, to resign. The only decision the complainant can challenge is precisely that which she alleges was unlawful, namely the decision [taken on behalf of the Director-General to release her from her position], which was independent of the Ombudsperson's proposal. Even though there is no doubt that it was the outcome of the Ombudsperson's investigations which led the [...] authorities to take the challenged decision, the lawfulness of that decision must be assessed independently of the Ombudsperson's proposal."
Keywords:
advisory body; decision; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; resignation; submissions; transfer;
Judgment 2121
93rd Session, 2002
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 14
Extract:
The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;
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 2061
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] does not have the authority to issue recommendations about an organisation's general policy."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; recommendation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
