Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Judicial review
Total judgments found: 548
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | next >
Judgment 4745
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal […] adds that, according to its well-settled case law regarding the standard of proof in cases of misconduct, the burden of proof rests on an organization, which has to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 22, 4491, consideration 19, 4461, consideration 6, 4364, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the Organization to find, on the evidence, that the complainant’s misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4364, 4461, 4491, 4697
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 4740
137th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his classification following a career review.
Considerations 6 & 11
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that the allocation of a post to a benchmark job or to a higher grade within the same benchmark job following a career review carried out within that defined legal framework necessarily involves the exercise of a value judgement as to the nature and extent of the tasks and responsibilities attached to that post – in other words, the “level of functions” – as well as an assessment of the level of expertise of the staff member concerned. That value judgement must be left to the discretion of the executive head of the Organization and it is not for the Tribunal to replace the Organization’s assessment with its own. Consequently, in the same way as for decisions taken by an organisation in relation to the classification or reclassification of posts, the Tribunal will only review a decision in this area on limited grounds and will only set it aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, if an essential fact was overlooked in the making of the decision, if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts or if there has been an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4502, consideration 6, 4221, consideration 11, 4000, consideration 7, and 3589, consideration 4).
[...]
[T]he Tribunal [also] observes that, ultimately, the complainant is essentially asking it to re-examine the career review carried out by the Career Review Board on the grounds that it was fundamentally inaccurate and should be rejected “altogether”. However, it must be found that the complainant misconstrues the nature of the Tribunal’s power of review in such a situation. As stated in consideration 6, [...] it is not for the Tribunal to carry out its own evaluation of the nature and extent of the tasks and responsibilities attached to a post or of the level of expertise of the staff member in question, and the decision taken following a career review can only be set aside on limited grounds, none of which has been established in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 4000, 4221, 4502
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the opinion of medical experts or a of committee dealing with medical cases, such as a compensation committee, with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the opinion delivered by the committee in question shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4473, consideration 13, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4473
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 4491, consideration 19, the Tribunal recalled that “[a] staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt”. Similarly, in Judgment 3969, consideration 16, the Tribunal reiterated that, when the executive head of an organisation seeks to motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of a Disciplinary Committee, she or he must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the conduct or behaviour of which a complainant is accused. Lastly, in Judgment 4047, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that it is equally well settled that the “Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact”.
In the present case, the Tribunal considers it entirely apparent, as was also noted in the unanimous opinions of the Disciplinary Board and the Joint Committee for Disputes, that the Administration could not have found the complainant to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the alleged breaches of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relied on.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4047, 4491
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 4687
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment after she refused two reassignments.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The general principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning decisions to reassign staff have most recently been discussed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4595:
“Consistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules, and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; whether it rests upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 2). An international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 11). It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgment 3601, under 20). [...]
The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgment 4253, under 3). While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organization (see Judgment 2635, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635, 3601, 4253, 4427, 4595
Keywords:
judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to settled case law, the grounds on which the Tribunal will intervene in a decision concerning the classification of a post are limited. In Judgment 4437, consideration 2, the Tribunal stated the following with regard to its limited power of review in this area:
“The Tribunal recalls that the evaluation and classification of a post is based on technical data. Thus, under its case law, the grounds on which the classification of a post may be reviewed are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts. This is because the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake this process of evaluation. The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 4221, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).” (See also Judgment 4502, consideration 6.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4221, 4437, 4502
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4662
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]n assessing the complainant’s application, the Committee and the Secretary General were entitled to take into account the Organization’s interests and the consequences of the complainant’s voluntary departure. The reasons given for rejecting her application – firstly, to await the arrival of a new executive director to assess the needs of the executive directorate, and secondly, because of the recent assignment of additional staff to her unit to meet human resources requirements – could be justified in terms of the Organization’s interests. It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its assessment for that of the Organization in such a case.
Keywords:
judicial review; motivation; organisation's interest;
Judgment 4658
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension with pay during disciplinary proceedings against him.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, a measure of suspension decided in the context of disciplinary proceedings, with or without pay, is an interim measure which in no way prejudges the decision to be taken on the merits as to whether a disciplinary sanction should be imposed on the official concerned. However, since it imposes a constraint on the official, it must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of misconduct (see, in particular, Judgments 4519, consideration 2, 3035, consideration 10, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). Such a decision lies at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal and will not be set aside unless it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4586, consideration 8, 4519, consideration 2, 4452, consideration 7, 3037, consideration 9, 3035, consideration 10, 2698, consideration 9, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). In order to assess whether a measure of suspension is lawful, the Tribunal must determine whether the conditions required to take such a measure were met at the time it was ordered, all subsequent facts being irrelevant (see, in particular, Judgments 3036, consideration 13, 3035, consideration 12, and 2365, consideration 4(c)). Where a measure of suspension has been extended, the Tribunal must also determine whether the conditions for each extension decision were met at the time that decision was taken (see, in particular, Judgment 4586, consideration 10). Lastly, while an authority may adopt a measure of suspension if it considers, on the basis of the evidence before it and at its own discretion, that the charge of misconduct against an official is reasonable, there is no need at this stage to prove that the accusations are well founded (see, in particular, Judgments 3036, consideration 13, 3035, consideration 14(a), and 2698, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 2365, 2698, 3035, 3036, 3037, 4452, 4519, 4586
Keywords:
judicial review; suspension;
Judgment 4640
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a series of management acts regarding his administrative status.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant requests a retroactive upgrading of his post to grade A2 in career group A4/1 in relation to his post of Brand Manager occupied as of 2004 and to the position of Application Manager occupied as of 1 November 2006. These requests are rejected as a decision as to the level of a post is within the purview of the competent authorities charged with evaluating and classifying posts pursuant to the applicable rules and not within the purview of the Tribunal, which will only determine the legality of the exercise of that power (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 2, and 2514, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2514, 4437
Keywords:
injunction; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4638
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he exercise which the complainant invites the Tribunal to carry out with regard to his productivity targets, overall rating, certain allegedly wrong or incorrect figures and, in his view, inappropriate applications of the new method for processing patent applications known as “BEST” (Bringing Examination and Search Together) and the PAX calculation rules is essentially a fresh appraisal of his performance for 2015. However, that misconstrues the Tribunal’s role in this area in view of its limited power of review under its settled case law (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, and 3252, consideration 6, also cited in [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 4564, 4637
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4625
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which, in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see, in particular, Judgments 4001, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 3372, 3652, 4001
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4612
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to suspend her from duties with immediate effect.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t is convenient to set out the legal principles applied by the Tribunal when considering a challenge to a suspension decision. The grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4452, consideration 7, 3037, consideration 9, 2698, consideration 9, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of an official is a provisional measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the substance of any disciplinary measure against her or him (see Judgments 2365, consideration 4(a) and 1927, consideration 5). However, as a restrictive measure on the staff member concerned, the suspension must have a legal basis, be justified by the needs of the organisation and be taken with due regard to the principle of proportionality. A staff member does not have a general right to be heard before a decision to suspend is made (see, for example, Judgment 4361, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4361, 4452
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Judgment 4599
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post, reassign her, terminate her contract including the decision to defer the date of her termination, and to reject her claims of retaliation.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Regarding the reassignment of staff, the Tribunal has recognized the wide discretion of an executive head of an international organization to reassign staff in the interest of the organization. The discretion is enshrined in Article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations which states that all staff members are subject to the authority of the executive head of the organization and to assignment by her or him to any of the activities or offices of the organization. The Tribunal has therefore stated that it may interfere with a decision to reassign a staff member only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal has however emphasised that the organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level of responsibilities as she or he performed in the previous post and matching her or his qualifications (Judgment 4240, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4240
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal reiterates, in respect of the supposed “flimsiness” of the actuarial studies at issue, that it is not its role to substitute its assessment for that of an expert such as an actuary unless that assessment is affected by a blatant error (see [...] Judgments 4278 and 4277, considerations 16 and 20 respectively, and the case law cited therein). The complainants’ line of argument regarding these studies, which consists in drawing attention to the hypothetical nature of particular data used therein – which the very nature of such studies makes inevitable – does not establish the existence of such a blatant error.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4277, 4278
Keywords:
actuary; discretion; expert inquiry; judicial review;
Judgment 4440
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[L]e requérant critique le fait qu’aucun résumé des arguments développés par les parties ne figure dans le jugement 4370. Mais il va de soi qu’avant de rendre ce jugement, le Tribunal a examiné l’ensemble de l’argumentation exposée par les parties, même si celle-ci n’a pas été reproduite dans ledit jugement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370
Keywords:
judicial review;
Judgment 4437
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the evaluation and classification of a post is based on technical data. Thus, under its case law, the grounds on which the classification of a post may be reviewed are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts. This is because the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake this process of evaluation. The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 4221, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4221
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[C]onsistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; rests upon a mistake of fact or law or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4084, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4084
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; transfer;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. This formulation is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature (see, for example, Judgment 4023, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3537, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4405
132nd Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal draws attention to its settled case law under which decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4180
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | next >
|
