|
|
 |
|
|
Rebuttal (289,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Rebuttal
Total judgments found: 23
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 3228
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his staff report, alleging that it was flawed by procedural errors.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, issues raised by staff reports “are discretionary and the Tribunal will set aside or amend a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. Those criteria are the more stringent because the EPO has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a joint body whose members are directly familiar with the workings of the Office.” (See Judgment 1688, under 5, and also Judgments 806, under 15, and 1144, under 7.) It is clear from the case law that the Tribunal will not interfere with the discretionary assessment of the decision-maker unless there is a reviewable error."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 246
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806, 1144, 1688
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; procedural flaw; rebuttal;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]s a general rule, an organisation should refrain from passing on damaging information about a staff member. If the recipient of that information has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth [...] it should refrain from passing on damaging information without first giving the staff member an opportunity to challenge it and give his or her own account."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty of care; duty of discretion; injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; rebuttal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
"On the issue of receivability, the Centre contends that [...] the complainant was late in filing his appeal with the Board, and that his complaint is therefore not receivable."
"The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability. [T]he Chairman of the Board advised the complainant that the Board had decided to grant his request for review of the administrative decisions despite the late filing of the notice of appeal. [T]he Appellate Body accepted the appeal and, as no objection was then taken, it is not open to the Centre to object before the Tribunal."
Keywords:
delay; internal appeals body; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
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, arguing that the decision impugned before the Tribunal is not an administrative decision, but essentially a political one. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant was an international civil servant who was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision to terminate his appointment. That decision must be viewed as an administrative decision, even though it was taken by the Conference of the States parties."
Keywords:
decision; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat; interpretation; member state; official; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
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, arguing that the complainant was not a staff member. "The defendant [...] considers that since the particular case of the Director-General of the Organisation was not expressly provided for in the texts on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based, an express provision recognising its jurisdiction would have been necessary. It points out that [another international organisation] (UNESCO), having realised that it had no statutory provision nor any contractual stipulation attributing jurisdiction in the event of a dispute involving its Director-General, decided in 1999 to include such a clause in the contract it signed with him. whilst the Tribunal does not deny that UNESCO thereby clarified difficulties which were liable to arise, it does not view that as authority for the reverse proposition that contracts containing no such clause, entered into by other organisations with their respective chief administrative officers, must be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; decision; exception; executive head; grounds; interpretation; no provision; organisation; provision; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; written rule;
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 2228
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Staff Committee's access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system was withdrawn after the organisation made an objection on technical grounds following the mass distribution of documents. "The Staff Committee is responsible for [...] maintaining "suitable contacts between the competent administrative authorities and the staff", which necessarily implies the availability of adequate means of communication within the organisation... Nevertheless, the incident mentioned by the [organisation] involving the mass distribution of a union report [...] shows that some degree of control is necessary, without jeopardising the Staff Committee's freedom of expression and speech."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; facilities; freedom of speech; liability; official; organisation; publication; purpose; rebuttal; refusal; report; staff union;
Judgment 2222
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Referring to the Tribunal's case law, in particular Judgments 70 and 1543, the defendant submits that the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, does not extend to disputes regarding the Director-General's discretion to waive diplomatic immunity. It is worth noting that the complainant does not in fact [...] challenge the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity in itself. He rather challenges the circumstances in which that decision was taken, which in his view violated his contractual rights or those arising from the general principles of law which should be observed by international organisations. Since the case law referred to by the defendant does not apply, the Tribunal is of the view that only a consideration of the merits of the case may show whether the complainant's allegations are well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70, 1543
Keywords:
breach; case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; general principle; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right; terms of appointment; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2219
95th Session, 2003
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The [organisation] contends that the application for review is irreceivable on the grounds that it was submitted more than five months after the judgment was delivered. According to the [organisation], this does not constitute a "reasonable" time within the meaning of the case law referred to in Judgment 1952. The Tribunal on occasion has ruled on applications for review filed more than six months after the impugned judgment was delivered, and even though it is aware of the need to avoid going back on legal situations arising from its decisions, it may consider an application to be receivable when it is submitted nearly six months after a judgment has been delivered, as in the present case. If vital evidence were to come to light, for instance, a judgment could be reviewed even after a greater period of time has elapsed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952
Keywords:
application for review; case law; reasonable time; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
Judgment 1301
76th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant is objecting to a decision to put in her personal file several performance appraisals which she alleges were drawn up in breach of the established procedure and contained "libellous comments". The ILO says that she refused to submit any comments of her own on the reports and thereby prevented the review procedure from moving ahead. "The requirement that a complainant go through any internal procedure is not just a formality. [...] By refusing to [make] comments on the draft reports she is challenging the complainant failed to avail herself of the means at her disposal to have the reports withdrawn or altered. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; work appraisal;
Judgment 1144
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As was said in Judgment 806 [...], a decision on a staff report, being a discretionary one, may be set aside only on limited grounds such as a procedural or formal flaw, a mistake of fact or of law, the overlooking of some material fact, abuse of authority or the drawing of a mistaken conclusion from the evidence. That judgment goes on to explain that the review will be more limited because at the EPO there is a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations allow the staff member to appeal to a joint committee made up of people who are closely familiar with the running of the Office."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 1048
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant seeks the withdrawal of her performance report. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appraisal of her work was based on true facts; besides, the complainant's reservations were appended to the report.
Keywords:
application for quashing; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 1028
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was issued a reprimand after putting down insulting remarks about his supervisors on his staff report. Article 47(1) of the EPO Service Regulations says that employees "shall be entitled to make any comments" they consider relevant on their staff report. But the Tribunal holds that "the freedom of speech that provision safeguards plainly affords no excuse for insult and libel." The choice of sanction is wholly warranted.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 47(1) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 973
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The case-law has laid down several principles in the matter of staff reports. First, the person approving the report will allow the reporting officer great freedom of expression. Secondly, the staff member's own comments may serve to remedy any error of judgment there may have been. Thirdly, it would be wrong to approve a report (a) if the reporting officer had made an obvious mistake of fact over some important point, (b) if he had neglected some essential fact, (c) if he had been grossly inconsistent or (d) if he could be shown to have been prejudiced."
Keywords:
discretion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 920
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is clear form the evidence before the Tribunal that the complainant's objections to the report are unfounded. He knew already, because [his supervisor] had often told him, that his performance was considered poor. The period covered by the report was not too short because the minimum period a report may cover is three months."
Keywords:
performance report; period; rating; rebuttal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 919
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's "objections to the reckoning of his output are unsound. Not only is a search examiner required to produce a steady output of work, but the output expected of him was reckoned according to the period covered by the report. There is therefore no reason why the report period should not be five months, even if the more usual period is a year."
Keywords:
output; performance report; period; rebuttal; work appraisal;
Judgment 806
61st Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The procedural flaw the complainant alleges is that the EPO will fully let the appeal proceedings drag on so as to thwart his hopes of promotion. The plea fails. The EPO may not be taken to task for awaiting the Tribunal's ruling on the earlier complaint." In addition the EPO resorted to an extraordinary procedure so that his promotion could be awarded.
Keywords:
administrative delay; consequence; lack of injury; performance report; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; rebuttal;
Judgment 724
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
Keywords:
bias; different appraisals; mistaken conclusion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 722
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It will be right not to approve a report only if the reporting officer made an obvious mistake over some important point, if he neglected some essential fact, if he was grossly inconsistent or if he can be shown to have been prejudiced. And he need not be deemed prejudiced just because his assessment for one period is not the same as another reporting officer's opinion of the same official for an earlier or later period."
Keywords:
bias; different appraisals; judicial review; mistaken conclusion; performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 599
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"It is essential to the value of an appraisal report that the reporter should be granted great freedom of expression. Normally, if there be any errors of judgement on his part, they can be sufficiently remedied by the incorporation in the report of the staff member's point of view."
Keywords:
performance report; rebuttal;
Judgment 576
51st Session, 1983
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
When the complainant received the personal report, he did not add his own comments. He by-passed the largely informal discussion stage by prematurely filing a notice of appeal. "He thereby interrupted the procedure for preparation of the final text, and only that text constitutes a decision. [He] did no more than challenge a preliminary act, and his present claim to have it set aside is irreceivable."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; rebuttal;
Judgment 254
34th Session, 1975
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not construe appraisal reports as if they were clauses in the Staff Rules. Indeed, the Tribunal will not normally entertain complaints about the contents of appraisal reports and will grant relief only if they show a total misconception of the situation."
Keywords:
application for quashing; competence of tribunal; interpretation; judicial review; performance report; rebuttal;
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant contends that his supervisor failed to discuss his conclusions with him as required by the applicable provision. "Non-compliance with these requirements does not however ipso facto invalidate a report. In the present case it is clear from the facts in the dossier that discussion would have served no useful purpose."
Keywords:
flaw; lack of injury; organisation's duties; performance report; rebuttal; right to reply;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
