|
|
 |
|
|
Recusal (82, 973,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Recusal
Total judgments found: 21
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] rightly contends that her appeal to the Joint Committee was not considered, at least in appearance, in compliance with the essential requirements as to impartiality.
First, the written evidence shows that a member of that Committee – who, according to the complainant’s undisputed assertion, was the spouse of the only other candidate participating in the contested competition, and whose disqualification the complainant had requested for that very reason – took part in hearing the case in question. The Tribunal considers that this member faced, in the circumstances of the case, a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw. The practical difficulties put forward by the organisation to justify the fact that he did not do so cannot be accepted, particularly as the member in question had an alternate.
Second, the Joint Committee had, as already stated, asked the head of the Legal Department to provide it with an opinion in connection with its examination of the complainant’s appeal. However, as a member of the Committee pointed out in a dissenting opinion, that request breached the principle of impartiality since, in particular, that official was herself involved in managing competitions and, above all, she had at the same time been appointed to represent the Executive Director before the Joint Committee in that case.
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body; recusal;
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 2671
104th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A reasonable person, knowing that a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved. So much was decided in Judgment 179 in which it was said that 'failing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality'. [...] It follows that those persons who had been members of the first Appeals Committee were disqualified from membership of the second Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 1190
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Under WHO Staff Rule 1230.4 an official who has appealed to the Appeals Board is entitled to challenge two of its members. One of the complainants exercised that right but had his challenge rejected. There was therefore a serious flaw in the internal appeal procedure. The material issue is whether the Director-General was entitled to treat the Board's report as being in line with the material rules. The report itself discloses that the rights of one of the complainants had been ignored. The Tribunal holds that "the Director-General has a duty to enforce the rules. He knew of the breach and should have rejected the report insofar as it concerned [the complainant] who objected to it as not being in accordance with those rules: he was not entitled to proceed as if no breach had occurred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1230.4
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; due process; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; recusal; report; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1124
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Chairman of the Committee with a mandate to consider the complainant's request for review of the decision setting the amount of his termination indemnity resigned because he regarded other duties he held as incompatible with the chairmanship. "There was [...] nothing improper about that. Indeed, the Chairman's resignation removed a threat to the Committee's impartiality". It was, moreover, in line with Clause 3 of Article 146 of the Staff Rules.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 146(3) OF THE INTERPOL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; enforcement; internal appeals body; recusal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1065
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5, Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects to the members of the Tribunal and to the members of the EPO Appeals Committee. "His attitude and language are [...] inadmissible. As in Judgments 933, 934 and 935 the Tribunal again deplores his offensive manner of putting his case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 933, 934, 935
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeals body; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 1004
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant's candidature in an internal competition having been eliminated, he challenged the composition of the Selection Board. He had doubts that its Vice-chairman, who had retired and later gone back to the organisation, might not have been reappointed to the Board as required under the material rules. The Tribunal observes that the guidelines issued to implement the provisions of Circular 380 (Series 6) of 3 March 1987 expressly stipulate that officials who have been reappointed will be considered to have had no break in service for the purposes of service on the Selection Board. The argument fails.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 380 (SERIES 6) OF 3 MARCH 1987
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; condition; recusal; selection board;
Judgment 935
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant questions the impartiality of the President of the Tribunal on the grounds that the President allowed the EPO's application for permission to confine its reply to the issue of receivability. The President took that decision by virtue of his general authority to direct proceedings. Even when the President has granted permission to reply only on receivability the Tribunal may still declare a complaint receivable and order further pleadings on the merits, as indeed it did in Judgment 852."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 852
Keywords:
bias; competence of tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; recusal; reply confined to receivability; tribunal;
Judgment 934
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] deplores the complainant's manner of pleading. [...] His rejoinder contains accusations and remarks that are offensive to everyone concerned, including members of the Tribunal when they do not agree with him."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 933
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal deplores the complainant's manner of pleading. [...] His rejoinder contains accusations and remarks that are offensive to everyone concerned, including members of the Tribunal when they do not agree with him."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 667
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant advances the argument "that the internal appeal procedure could not now function properly since every member of the Appeals Committee [...] would himself have an interest in the outcome of the appeal. [The argument fails.] The objection to the membership of the [...] Committee cannot be entertained in hearing the present complaint. In any event the Committee would be competent to consider allegations of flaws in the individual decision."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 536
49th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"One of [the complainant's] arguments is that the Tribunal was not correctly constituted when it delivered Judgment No. 404" and that because of various other defects the judgment is null and void. "This is a plea she might have put forward in the written proceedings in her fourth complaint, which culminated in Judgment No. 442. It is therefore not admissible."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442
Keywords:
application for review; composition of the internal appeals body; inadmissible grounds for review; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 303
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
One of the complainants contends that the Careers Committee for promotions included the chief of the personnel service, the official who had determined his performance mark, and that the Committee's composition was therefore irregular. "But the fact that the chief of the personnel service should sit on such a committee is only normal. That official had a duty of impartiality both in marking the complainant's performance and in serving on the Careers Committee, and the two functions were therefore quite compatible."
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; promotion board; recusal; supervisor;
Judgment 232
32nd Session, 1974
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The fact that [the official in question] was a member of the Appeals Board although as chief of personnel he had previously appointed the complainant to [two posts] cannot taint the composition of the Board with irregularity nor afford grounds for debarring that senior official."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 179
27th Session, 1971
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Because of its purpose, which is to protect the individual against arbitrary action, [the rule on withdrawal] applies in international organisations even in [the absence] of any specific text."
Keywords:
bias; enforcement; no provision; recusal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The mere fact that one member of the Advisory Board was the son-in-law of the wife of a staff member serving in the same division as the complainant at a higher grade is not sufficient to constitute a ground for withdrawal. There is no direct relationship either by blood or by marriage between the member and the official concerned, and the latter [...] cannot [...] be regarded as his supervisor in the proper sense of the term." He was not required to withdraw.
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; condition; family relationship; internal appeals body; recusal;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[F]ailing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the officials [who may take or influence the decision] are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality or if for other reasons they may be open to suspicion of partiality."
Keywords:
bias; condition; recusal;
Judgment 110
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Neither the fact that two of the judges that sat in the case [...] disposed of by Judgment No. 70 have been called upon to hear a further case brought by the same complainant, nor the fact that one of these judges is of Swiss nationality and sits on the Supreme Court of his own country, can in itself be regarded as valid grounds for objection to these judges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; grounds; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 107
17th Session, 1967
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(C)
Extract:
"When making their decision the three experts were not aware of the names of the respective candidates, the papers having been placed in plain envelopes marked only with a letter of the alphabet. This ensured the impartiality of the experts. While it is true that complainant's chief, who was allegedly prejudiced against him, was a member of the Board of Experts, he expressed views which, although independent of those of his colleagues, did not differ from them. Consequently his presence cannot be said to have brought personal influence to bear on the results of the competition [...]. There is no reason to question the impartiality with which the results were evaluated."
Keywords:
bias; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; selection board;
Judgment 105
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 110, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 110
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; grounds; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 102
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 110, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 110
Keywords:
composition of the tribunal; grounds; objection to the composition of the tribunal; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 101
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
See Judgment 110, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 110
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; grounds; recusal; tribunal;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
