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: 569
< 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, 29 | next >
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejeter ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral et demande réparation pour le préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la question de savoir si l’on se trouve en présence d’un cas de harcèlement se résout à la lumière d’un examen rigoureux de toutes les circonstances objectives ayant entouré les actes dénoncés (voir, notamment, le jugement 4471, au considérant 18) et l’accusation de harcèlement doit être corroborée par des faits précis dont la preuve incombe à celui qui affirme en avoir été victime, étant entendu qu’il n’a pas à démontrer que la personne accusée aurait agi intentionnellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4344, au considérant 3, 3871, au considérant 12, et 3692, au considérant 18). Lorsqu’une procédure spécifique est prévue par l’organisation concernée, elle doit être suivie et les règles doivent être correctement appliquées. Le Tribunal a également considéré que l’enquête doit être objective, rigoureuse et approfondie, en ce sens qu’elle doit être menée d’une manière permettant de s’enquérir de tous les faits pertinents sans pour autant compromettre la réputation de la personne mise en cause et en donnant à ce dernier la possibilité de vérifier les preuves avancées à son encontre et de répondre aux accusations formulées (voir, notamment, les jugements 4663, aux considérants 10 à 13, 4253, au considérant 3, 3314, au considérant 14, et 2771, au considérant 15). Il est toutefois entendu qu’un fonctionnaire qui affirme être ou avoir été victime de harcèlement n’a pas besoin de démontrer, pas plus que la personne ou l’organe chargé(e) d’évaluer la plainte, que les faits permettent d’établir au-delà de tout doute raisonnable le caractère effectif du harcèlement (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4663, au considérant 12, et 4289, au considérant 10). L’élément essentiel dans la reconnaissance d’un harcèlement est en effet la perception que la personne concernée peut raisonnablement et objectivement avoir d’actes ou de propos qui sont propres à la dévaloriser ou à l’humilier (voir les jugements 4663, au considérant 13, et 4541, au considérant 8).
Le Tribunal rappelle par ailleurs qu’il ne lui appartient pas de réévaluer les preuves dont dispose l’organe chargé d’enquêter, qui, en sa qualité de première instance d’examen des faits, a eu l’avantage de rencontrer et d’entendre directement la plupart des personnes concernées et d’évaluer la fiabilité de leurs déclarations (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4291, au considérant 12, et 3593, au considérant 12). Il n’interviendra en conséquence qu’en cas d’erreur manifeste (voir, notamment, les jugements 4344, au considérant 8, 4091, au considérant 17, et 3597, au considérant 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4291, 4344, 4471, 4663
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; due process; harassment; inquiry; judicial review; manifest error; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; right to reply; standard of proof;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Dans la mesure où la requête est dirigée contre la décision du Directeur général de rejeter, comme infondée, sa première plainte pour harcèlement moral dirigée contre M. P. H., le Tribunal observe ce qui suit :
a) Lorsque l’administration prend des mesures pour traiter une réclamation, par exemple en la transmettant à l’organe de recours interne compétent, cette démarche constitue en soi une «décision touchant ladite réclamation» au sens de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal, qui fait obstacle à la naissance d’une décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être déférée devant le Tribunal (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3715, au considérant 4, 3428, au considérant 18, et 3146, au considérant 12).
b) En application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le requérant aurait dû introduire une requête devant le Tribunal dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours à compter de l’expiration du délai de quatre mois dont disposait l’administration pour répondre à sa réclamation, et ce, même si la Commission paritaire des litiges avait été saisie. La présente requête devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour tardiveté en vertu de l’article VII, paragraphe 2, du Statut du Tribunal, combiné avec le paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif.
c) Mais, en l’espèce, le Tribunal considère que le requérant a été induit en erreur par l’Organisation lorsque cette dernière lui a indiqué que, en raison de la transmission de sa réclamation à la Commission paritaire des litiges, il devait, en application de la jurisprudence du Tribunal relative à l’application de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, de son Statut, attendre la décision définitive du Directeur général avant de pouvoir saisir le Tribunal. Ce faisant, l’Organisation a en effet omis de tenir compte de ce que, en application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le défaut de réponse du Directeur général à une réclamation dans un délai de quatre mois à partir du jour de l’introduction de celle-ci vaut par ailleurs lui-même décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal. Il n’y a pas lieu de déclarer la requête irrecevable pour tardiveté, en ce qu’elle est dirigée contre une décision de rejet implicite émanant du Directeur général. Statuer en sens contraire reviendrait en effet à priver indûment le requérant de son droit de saisir le Tribunal en raison du seul comportement de l’Organisation.
d) Le Tribunal observe que, bien que le non-respect par le requérant du délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours pour saisir le Tribunal ait été ci-dessus reconnu comme admissible en raison du fait qu’il lui avait été indiqué, à tort, par l’Organisation qu’il devait attendre une décision explicite, l’intéressé n’a finalement pas attendu l’intervention de cette décision pour introduire sa requête. Celle-ci devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement préalable des voies de recours internes prévue par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. Mais, en l’espèce, compte tenu du délai d’un an et sept mois qui s’était écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation du requérant, le 5 juin 2020, et le dépôt de sa requête, le 7 février 2022, et du fait que son conseil avait procédé, en vain, à des relances auprès du Directeur général, le Tribunal considère que le requérant était confronté à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de saisir directement le Tribunal. En effet, en vertu de la jurisprudence du Tribunal, un requérant est recevable à saisir directement le Tribunal d’une requête dirigée contre la décision initiale qu’il entend contester lorsque les organes compétents ne sont pas en mesure de statuer sur son recours interne dans un délai raisonnable au regard des circonstances de l’espèce, à condition qu’il ait vainement entrepris ce que l’on pouvait attendre de sa part en vue d’accélérer la procédure interne et qu’il ressorte de la situation constatée que l’autorité de recours n’était effectivement pas à même de rendre sa décision définitive dans un tel délai raisonnable (voir notamment les jugements 4660, au considérant 2, 4271, au considérant 5, 4268, aux considérants 10 et 11, 4200, au considérant 3, 3558, au considérant 9, 2039, au considérant 4, ou 1486, au considérant 11).
e) Le Tribunal relève, en outre, qu’une décision définitive a finalement été prise par le Directeur général en date du 12 mai 2022 et que cette décision a été produite en cours de procédure, de même que l’avis de la Commission paritaire des litiges y relatif. Dès lors que le Tribunal est en possession d’un dossier complet et que les parties ont eu la possibilité de s’exprimer pleinement dans leurs écritures au sujet de cette décision de rejet explicite de la réclamation du requérant du 5 juin 2020, et donc de la décision de rejet de la première plainte pour harcèlement en ce qu’elle était dirigée contre M. H. B., il estime que, conformément à sa jurisprudence, il y a lieu de requalifier la requête comme étant dirigée contre cette dernière décision du 12 mai 2022 (voir notamment, pour des cas de figure similaires, les jugements 4769, au considérant 3, 4768, au considérant 3, 4660, au considérant 6, 4065, au considérant 3, et 2786, au considérant 3).
La présente requête est par conséquent recevable en ce qu’elle met en cause la légalité de la décision du Directeur général du 12 mai 2022 de rejeter, comme infondée, la première plainte pour harcèlement moral dirigée contre M. P. H. C’est donc dans cette mesure qu’elle sera examinée par le Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 4810
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is firmly established in the case law that the classification of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or of the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgments 4186, consideration 6, and 3082, consideration 20). As a result, the Tribunal will only review such a classification on limited grounds. A classification decision can 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 law or fact, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 2, 4384, consideration 4, 4186, consideration 6, 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). 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 the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4186, 4186, 4384, 4437
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that staff members have a right to bring complaints before the Tribunal and there should be no negative implications arising from the exercise of that right.
Keywords:
complaint; judicial review; retaliation;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of anemployee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).
Among the various pleas entered by the complainant [...], there is one that is decisive for the outcome of this dispute, [...] since it relates to a material fact that was allegedly overlooked. This is the plea that the President of the Boards of Appeal refused to take account of the fact that the 50 per cent exemption from duties granted to the complainant as a full member of the CSC, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Circular No. 356 concerning the resources and facilities to be granted to the Staff Committee, was insufficient in the light of actual needs observed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Judgment 4793
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4792
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 3 & 11
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
[…]
Regarding the third plea, the complainant’s argument to the effect that his 2016 performance assessment was not thoroughly done and was “extremely thin” implicitly invites the Tribunal into the realm of technical considerations regarding appraisal assessments that are not within its purview […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4791
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 4 & 8
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare her 2016 appraisal report null and void, and […] to declare the whole appraisal procedure null and void, including the appraisal report, are noted. The Tribunal simply observes that it may, if appropriate, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4790
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 2 & 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to order that his 2016 appraisal report be amended so that he receives an overall performance rating of “above the level required for the function” instead of “corresponding to the level required for the function” is rejected as irreceivable as it is not within the Tribunal’s power to change the overall assessment rating in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 13).
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4789
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4788
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 4 & 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the orders stated in items (4), (5) and (7) are rejected as, in the main, they involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal recalls its case law, stated, for example, in consideration 13 of Judgment 4637, referring to Judgment 4257, that its power to review appraisal reports is limited to considering, among other things, whether there was illegality in drawing up the contested report. It is not within the Tribunal’s power to change the overall assessment rating or to upgrade the evaluation of the functional and core competencies in an appraisal report (see also Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7). The Tribunal may, if necessary, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4564, 4718, 4719, 4720
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4787
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 1, 5, 7 & 8
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the complainant’s request for an order that the EPO issues a “flawless” appraisal report for 2016 so that she receives an overall performance rating of “above the level required for the function” rather than “corresponding to the level required for the function”. In the main, such request involves an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal may, if appropriate, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
As the complainant challenges the impugned decision on procedural and substantive grounds, the Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
[…]
The Committee [...] stated the well-established principle that appraisal reports are discretionary decisions that are subject to only limited review […]
[…]
[I]t is not within the Tribunal’s power to change the overall assessment rating in an appraisal report (see, for example, Judgments 4720, consideration 4, 4719, consideration 7, 4718, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637, 4718, 4719, 4720
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4786
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 1 & 4
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the complainant’s request for an order that the EPO issues a new “flawless” appraisal report for 2016. In the main, such request involves an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be. The Tribunal may, if appropriate, set aside the contested appraisal report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the EPO for review.
[…]
The Tribunal recalls the following statement which it made in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in the matter of staff appraisals:
“It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. [...]
[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] establishes that the executive head of an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff and, therefore, the decisions that she or he takes in this area are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere in such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4552, consideration 2, 4451, consideration 6, and 3742, consideration 3). This case law also applies in the particular situation where, as in the present case, the object of the contested decision is to determine whether it is appropriate to rescind the award of a promotion to a staff member who now feels dissatisfied with it. In this regard, the complainant is, in reality, simply asking the Tribunal to replace the Secretary-General’s assessment by its own assessment of whether or not the promotion he received should be rescinded, which misconstrues the limited power of review of the Tribunal in such a case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3742, 4451, 4552
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 12
Extract:
In respect of staff transfers, the Tribunal stated the following in Judgment 4687, consideration 5, which refers to Judgments 4595, consideration 2, and 4427, consideration 2:
“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.”
Among the complainant’s various pleas against the contested transfer decision, there is one which falls within the limited scope of the Tribunal’s power of review thus defined, since it relates to a breach of procedural rules, and is decisive for the outcome of this dispute. This plea concerns a breach of the complainant’s right to be heard before the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4427, 4595, 4687
Keywords:
judicial review; transfer;
Judgment 4767
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 2
Extract:
First of all, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law that decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation, including to abolish posts, may be taken at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall confine itself to ascertaining whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest on a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of individual decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4503, consideration 11, and 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4766
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 2
Extract:
First of all, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law that decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation, including to abolish posts, may be taken at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall confine itself to ascertaining whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest on a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of individual decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4503, consideration 11, and 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4761
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to recognise that the illness from which he claims to suffer is service-induced.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Since this involves a medical matter, the Tribunal recalls that, according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4699, consideration 6, 4694, consideration 11, 4464, consideration 7, 3994, consideration 5, and 3361, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699
Keywords:
judicial review; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4685, consideration 4, quoting Judgment 4186, consideration 6:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the grounds for reviewing the classification of a post 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 (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). Indeed, 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation (or of the person acting on his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
This case law is applicable not only to the judicial review of a decision on the classification or reclassification of a post, but also, as in the present case, to the decision not to start a reclassification process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3082, 3294, 4186, 4685
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4751
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the ICC’s refusal to grant his request for several special post allowances.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s submissions are mainly based on his own interpretation of the duties and responsibilities he actually carried out, as well as on a personal appraisal of his performance, which cannot be taken into account by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
judicial review; special post allowance;
Judgment 4750
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for unauthorised absence and abandonment of post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Although, as she observes, the complainant was [...] entitled to request special leave without pay, she did not have an automatic right to receive it; it was to be granted at the discretion of the Registrar of the Court. Given an international organisation’s discretionary authority to take such a decision, it is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal 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 law or of fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, in particular, Judgment 4101, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; special leave;
< 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, 29 | next >
|
