Discretion (547, 548, 549, 550, 551,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Discretion
Total judgments found: 609
< 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, 30, 31 | next >
Judgment 4218
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
It is convenient to commence by recalling the approach of the Tribunal to cases in which a complainant challenges a decision not to renew a contract. They were conveniently summarised in Judgment 3586, consideration 6:
“Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6). These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, under 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3444, 3586
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4216
129th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, for example, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be suitably filled, and the opening of such a procedure does not therefore imply that a candidate will necessarily be appointed to that post (see, for example, Judgments 791, consideration 4, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, 3647, consideration 9, and 3920, consideration 18).
According to the same case law, the decision not to fill a post for which a competition procedure is opened – like any decision to appoint an official in the opposite case that an appointment is made – is a matter for the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, in particular, aforementioned Judgments 791, consideration 4, or 1771, consideration 6). The Tribunal must, however, ascertain whether that decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1689, consideration 3, 2060, consideration 4, 2457, consideration 6, 3537, consideration 10, and 3652, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1689, 1771, 1982, 2060, 2075, 2457, 3537, 3647, 3652, 3920
Keywords:
competition cancelled; discretion; organisation's interest;
Judgment 4212
129th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his contract at the end of the probation period for unsatisfactory service.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[I]t is useful to recall that the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position. For this reason, the Tribunal has consistently recognized:
“[...] that a high degree of deference ought to be accorded to an organisation’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerning probationary matters including the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary term, and the identification of its own interests and requirements. The Tribunal stated in Judgment 1418, under 6, that a discretionary decision of this kind will only be set aside ‘if taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority’. It also reaffirmed that ‘where the reason for refusal of confirmation is unsatisfactory performance, [it] will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own.’”
(Judgment 2646, consideration 5; see also, for example, Judgments 3913, consideration 2, 3844, consideration 4, and 3085, consideration 23).
As well, an international organization’s obligations regarding a staff member’s probation period are well settled in the case law. For example, in Judgment 3866, consideration 5, the Tribunal observed:
“In Judgment 2788, consideration 1, the Tribunal identified the applicable principles as follows:
‘[I]t is useful to reiterate certain principles governing probation that are of particular relevance to the present case. Its purpose is to provide an organisation with an opportunity to assess an individual’s suitability for a position. In the course of making this assessment, an organisation must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify in a timely fashion the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning that the continued employment is in jeopardy (see Judgment 2529, under 15).’”
Lastly, as stated in Judgment 3678, consideration 1, a probationer is “entitled to have objectives set in advance so that she or he will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1418, 2529, 2646, 2788, 3085, 3678, 3844, 3866, 3913
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; probationary period;
Judgment 4186
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for a job grading review.
Consideration 6
Extract:
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4172
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to consistent case law, “a decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment, being discretionary, may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority. [...] What is more, where the reason given for the non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance the Tribunal will not replace with its own the Organisation’s view of the complainant’s fitness for his duties” (see Judgment 1052, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4170
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reports for the 2010-2011 biennium and the decisions to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2012, to withhold that increment on that date and to not renew her fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that international organisations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisal and whether to renew a fixed-term appointment. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1583, consideration 2, 3039, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, and 4062, consideration 6, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 3039, 4010, 4062
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4169
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that international organisations have wide discretion in taking decisions concerning staff performance appraisal. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1583, consideration 2, 3039, consideration 7, or 4010, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 3039, 4010
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4153
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a competition procedure in which she participated and of the appointment made at the end of that procedure.
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of an international organisation to make an appointment is 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 law or fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, consideration 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3209, consideration 11). The case law also establishes that an organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must shield the successful candidate from any injury that may result from the setting aside of an appointment he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, considerations 10 and 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4146
128th Session, 2019
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond nine years of service.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment;
Judgment 4144
128th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “partly satisfactory” overall rating in his performance evaluation report.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Finally, the Tribunal deals with the plea under (h) according to which the complainant’s 2016 PER was flawed as he did not have a specific job description on the basis of which his performance could be assessed, as provided for in Staff Rule 105.1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Organization should have a specific job description for each post and that the performance should be evaluated on the basis of the duties and responsibilities as set forth in the job description, but it also notes that a general job classification standard, approved by the Director-General, exists. Indeed, Staff Rule 107.3 provides that “[t]he duties and responsibilities of each post in grades 1-12 inclusive shall be evaluated on the basis of job classification standards approved by the Director-General”. The complainant’s 2016 performance was evaluated based on the job classification standard for his post and grade and on the work objectives indicated by the supervisor. Moreover his underperformance, relating mostly to his interactions with his colleagues and supervisors, was not linked to the performance of specific duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the JAB’s finding that the absence of a comprehensive job description and/or specific benchmarks in this case does not constitute a procedural flaw affecting the lawfulness of the 2016 PER is correct.
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s regards the pleas under (e) and (f), the Tribunal considers that those pleas challenge the substance of the evaluation, but they do not show that the contested assessment involved any reviewable error. The complainant merely proposes different evaluation criteria. The Tribunal must ascertain whether the marks given to the employee have been worked out in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the bodies responsible for assessing the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore interfere in this field only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgment 3268, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3268
Keywords:
discretion; performance report;
Judgment 4139
128th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization’s services, including one involving the abolition of a post, lies at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or of law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 1131, consideration 5, 2510, consideration 10, 2933, consideration 10, 3582, consideration 6, or 4099, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4102
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the ILO’s failure to take a final decision on her job grading appeal and the failure to grant her a contract without limit of time.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal cannot order the Organization to reclassify the complainant’s post since this is a discretionary decision to be made by the Organization.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; post classification;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the case law of the Tribunal, a decision on a request for special leave is discretionary (see, for example, Judgment 2262, consideration 2). Considering the discretion afforded to international organizations to take such decisions, such a decision is subject to only limited review and can be set aside only if it has been taken without authority or in breach of the rules of form or procedure, if it is based on an error of fact or law or has overlooked essential facts, if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts or if there is an abuse of authority (see Judgements 1929, consideration 5, and 2619, consideration 5). In this case, the Director did not exceed the limits of her discretionary authority, which the Tribunal must respect in exercising its limited power of review over such matters.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929, 2262, 2619
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; special leave;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619
Keywords:
discretion; discrimination; equal treatment; special leave;
Judgment 4099
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization’s services, including one concerned with the abolition of a position, lies at the discretion of the organization’s executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or of law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence. However, it cannot supplant the organization’s appraisal with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, consideration 5, 2510, consideration 10, 2933, consideration 10, and 3582, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4097
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision not to extend the complainant’s reassignment period was flawed. It is not a question of whether it was likely or not that the complainant would be placed in a position emerging from the reorganization. The power to extend a reassignment period is a discretionary power but it is not unfettered. It must be exercised having regard to the principles developed by the Tribunal. An organization that is endeavouring to reassign a staff member whose position has been abolished is obliged to do all that it can to find another position. It has been stated in one judgment of the Tribunal that the organization must do “its utmost” to find another position (see Judgment 3754, consideration 16, citing Judgment 2830, consideration 9). Indeed, the Tribunal has said that it is incumbent on the organization to prove that the affected staff member was not able to remain in the organization’s service (see Judgment 2830, consideration 9). These concepts are comprehended by the expression “reasonable efforts” in Staff Rule 1050.2. Even if it was only remotely possible, in the circumstances of a case such as the present when the reorganization was incomplete, that the reorganization might create a position to which the complainant could have been appointed, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of an extension of the reassignment period, as proposed by the RRC or for an even longer period.
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment 4089
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t was open to the Director General to view the complainant’s conduct giving rise to and the subsequent conduct in relation to the judgment debt as falling short of the standards demanded of international civil servants. Accordingly, and subject to the various legal arguments of the complainant, it was open to the Director General to conclude it was not in the interests of the Agency to extend the complainant’s appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Keywords:
age limit; conduct; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement; staff member's duties;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285
Keywords:
age limit; competence of tribunal; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review; retirement;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that “[e]ven though colleagues of the complainant’s thought him suitable and recommended extending his appointment, the decision was not theirs to make” (see Judgment 1038, consideration 4). While those observations concerned the extension of an appointment (without an impending retirement), they are apt to apply in a case such as the present.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1038
Keywords:
age limit; analogy; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that when a staff member of an international organization is transferred to a new post in non-disciplinary circumstances, that transfer is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting the staff member’s status. The organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the staff member, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level as that which she or he performed in her or his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see, for example, Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). This requirement is consistent with Staff Regulation 4.3(c) [...].
The responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar (see, for example, Judgment 1343, under 9). It is not for the Tribunal to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto, as that exercise falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organization, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post (see, for example, Judgment 2373, under 7). However, every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that she or he should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 2360, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 2229, 2360, 2373
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; general principle; grade; judicial review; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; reclassification; respect for dignity; transfer;
Judgment 4084
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 8
Extract:
On the merits, it is convenient to recall 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. The discretion includes making decisions relating to the structure of the organization, its departments, divisions or sections, including their restructuring to meet policy objectives, as well as decisions relating to the creation and abolition of posts and the transfer of staff as a part of the process. Firm precedent has it that such decisions are consequently subjected to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether the decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; rest upon a mistake of fact or law or whether they amount to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decisions as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 2742, under 34, and 3488, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3488
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; transfer;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of the executive head of an international organisation to allow or not to allow a staff member to carry out an assignment outside the organisation is a discretionary decision. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and thus will be set aside only if it has been taken without authority, if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of law or of fact, or if some essential fact has been overlooked or a clearly mistaken conclusion drawn from the evidence, or if there is misuse of authority (see Judgments 2377, consideration 5, and 3858, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3858
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; outside activity;
Judgment 4067
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal sets its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked a material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3991, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3991
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
< 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, 30, 31 | next >
|
