Breach (235,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Breach
Total judgments found: 168
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The parties do not dispute that the complainant had requested that a number of witnesses be heard, including his former supervisor [...], which was refused. [...] Any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds. In this case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainant’s allegations constitutes a breach of due process.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The parties do not dispute that the complainant had requested that the colleagues who had also filed a harassment grievance be heard as witnesses, which was refused. [...] In this case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainant’s allegations constitutes a breach of due process.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 4090
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the processing of his application for a disability benefit and the calculation of his sick leave entitlements.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he final constitution of the Board [was delayed] for almost four months. This was an unreasonably long period and delayed the resolution of the complainant’s application, which was ultimately successful, for a disability benefit. While the complainant has not discharged the burden of proving retaliation, bias and prejudice, the IAEA is liable for the consequences of this delay involving, as it does, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant, a ground relied on by the complainant in his fifth argument (see Judgment 2936, consideration 19). The IAEA, through its officers, was obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the complainant’s request for review of the decision to refuse him a disability benefit was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If, as happened, an impasse about who should be the Chair arose between a member of the Board nominated by the staff member and a temporary member [...] of the Board nominated by the Administration who also had the responsibility to nominate another member as his own replacement, then steps should have been taken with great expedition to nominate the member to replace him.
Keywords:
breach; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; disability benefit; duty of care; medical board; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3613
121st Session, 2016
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his employment for alleged unsatisfactory performance, the Global Fund’s refusal to retract a News Release published on the date of the termination of his employment, and the decision to maintain the News Release on the Fund’s website and its refusal to award compensation for excessive publication, defamation and continued breach of privacy.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; decision quashed; termination of employment;
Judgment 3579
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant complains of a breach of his “procedural rights” before the Appeals Board, the discontinuation of two elements of his mobility allowance and harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; harassment; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 3434
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal does not find that there is any ambiguity or lack of clarity in Article 28 of the Service Regulations. Article 28(1) is intended to protect a serving or former permanent employee or household members of his or her family who suffer injury as a result of criminal or tortious acts to the person or property, by reason of the employee’s office or duties. Under Article 28(2), the EPO is to compensate a serving or former employee who suffers injury “by reason of his office or duties”. Article 28 clearly cannot assist the complainant. In the first place, the payment or reimbursement of school fees is not an injury to which this provision refers. Additionally, no reasons of office or duties attach to the complainant’s present non-active status. Accordingly, the plea based on Article 28 of the Service Regulations is unfounded.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 28 of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
breach; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3315
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks damages for the injury arising from breach of due process and institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages but has adduced no evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to obtain such damages, notwithstanding that the events in question occurred some years before she filed her complaint. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. There is no ground for the award of exemplary damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the flagrant breach of due process, as well as for the institutional harassment which she sustained. These are grave violations, for which the complainant is accordingly awarded moral damages in the sum of 65,000 United States dollars. She is also awarded 3,000 dollars in costs.
Keywords:
breach; damages; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Judgment 3298
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the conditions of their reassignment and allege unequal treatment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; equal treatment;
Consideration 24
Extract:
"[B]y denying the complainants the status of non-locally recruited officials, whereas that status was granted to three officials reassigned to Addis Ababa in the same circumstances, the [Organization] breached the principle of equal treatment."
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; reassignment; status of complainant;
Judgment 3289
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is observed that there is no limitation period in relation to disciplinary proceedings in the Staff Regulations and Rules. The complainant’s attempt to analogise from the Staff Rule concerning the recovery of an overpayment within one year is without merit. An overpayment is in no way analogous to misconduct. It is true that, if possible, an organisation should promptly take action when the possibility of misconduct on the part of a staff member comes to its attention. However, the complainant’s assertion that an alleged violation of a Staff Rule, if considered serious, “has to be investigated promptly and at the latest one year after the Administration took notice thereof” has no foundation in law or in the Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; censure; complaint allowed; consultation; disciplinary measure; flaw; misconduct; outside activity; salary;
Judgment 3282
116th Session, 2014
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; compensation; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; duty of care; flaw; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).
Although Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations provides that the “proceedings of the [Reports] Board shall be regarded as secret”, this alone does not shield a report of the Board from disclosure to the concerned official. In the absence of any reason in law for non-disclosure of the report, such non-disclosure constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899
Keywords:
breach; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; discretion; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; performance report; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2986, 3034
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; request by a party;
Judgment 3185
114th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges her performance evaluation report, alleging personal prejudice and discrimination on the part of her direct supervisor.
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
"In principle, a supervisor cannot be criticised for recording the mistakes and errors of a subordinate with a view to preparing that person’s periodical performance evaluation, provided that the purpose of that action is, on the one hand, to ensure that the rating will be objective and, on the other hand, to increase the service’s efficiency by improving the performance of the person concerned. In the instant case, however, it is plain from the evidence that this practice was consistently applied to the complainant in order to stigmatise her shortcomings. [...] Her [evaluation] report is thus tainted with a serious flaw which justifies that it be set aside".
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; flaw; organisation's interest; performance report; purpose; rating; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3172
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority."
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; breach; competence of tribunal; decision; discretion; evidence; misuse of authority;
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The Staff Regulations and Rules do not require the Joint Appeals Panel to explain why it considers a given document to be relevant. However, in this case, the Panel did explain both in its memorandum to the Administration and in its formal recommendation to the Executive Secretary that the requested documents were relevant to the disputed question of whether the decisions to abolish the complainant’s post and not to extend her appointment were tainted by bias or some other legally vitiating factor. By refusing to proffer the documents, even though this did not prevent the Panel from continuing the appeal and issuing its recommendation, the Commission breached the principles of due process, entitling the complainant to moral damages."
Keywords:
breach; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; general principle; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3162
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; written rule;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 11 and 15
Extract:
"This Tribunal has recognised staff members’ right to privacy. An example is found in Judgment 2271. [...]
[T]he issue is whether there was a breach of privacy or confidentiality as a result of the disclosure to the Director of PSM/HRM of the fact that the complainant had made an Appendix D claim. The answer is readily found in Judgment 3004 at consideration 6. [...] The disclosure of the mere fact that the claim had been made involved a breach of confidentiality. Being in a similar situation, the complainant should be awarded 4,000 euros as moral damages for breach of confidentiality."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 3004
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; lack of consent; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3157
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
"[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3156
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, who are former staff representatives, unsuccessfully challenge decisions which, in their view, constituted violations of the right of staff representation.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Since organisations must prevent [any] abuse of the right of free speech [enjoyed by bodies representing the staff], the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by [such] bodies [...]. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message."
Keywords:
bias; breach; collective rights; condition; facilities; flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; refusal; right; staff representative; staff union;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
