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 3448
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary. Such a decision is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which respects the freedom of an international organization to determine its own staffing requirements and the career prospects of staff members. A person who is employed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right or a legitimate expectation to a contract extension. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not interfere with a decision not to extend such a contract unless the decision was made without authority, or in breach of a rule of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or amounted to an abuse of authority."
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; legitimate expectation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3404
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant had not proved that his lack of promotion in 2012 undermined his prospect of advancement within Eurocontrol.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that, while every official should have some prospect of advancement within an organisation and may therefore legitimately hope to move up to a higher position one day, there is no automatic right to promotion. This right is limited, on the one hand, by the official’s seniority, qualifications, skills and performance and, on the other, by the Organisation’s administrative structure and budgetary resources (see Judgments 526, under 4, 3279, under 11, and 3280, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 526, 3279, 3280
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 3372
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the cancellation of a competition and the appointment resulting from it.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary decision of the executive head of the organisation (see Judgment 2584, under 15). Such a decision is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it 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 have been drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases, and will not replace the organisation’s assessment of the candidates with its own. (See, for example, Judgments 2362, 2365 and 2392, under 10.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2362, 2365, 2392, 2584
Keywords:
candidate; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 3370
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who performed duties at a higher level than his grade, impugns the decision not to grant him a promotion and acting allowance, and partially succeeds on the basis that the Organisation breached its duty of care.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is well settled in judgments of the Tribunal that it will not order the promotion or reclassification of a staff member, as such decisions are discretionary and involve specialist evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 2706, consideration 14)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
discretion; promotion; reclassification;
Judgment 3362
118th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his short-term contract and not to advertise his post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to create a post, like all decisions relating to the management of posts or the organisation of services, is a discretionary decision the wisdom of which the Tribunal obviously cannot judge, having only a limited power of review (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, and 2856, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2856
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 3350
118th Session, 2014
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her request for readjustment of her annual basic salary and reclassification of her post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t should be noted that in the area of post classification the Tribunal leaves a considerable degree of discretion to organisations. It cannot simply substitute its own assessment for theirs. Decisions taken in this area are subject to only limited review, and can be set aside only if they were taken without authority, show some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlook some material fact, draw clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or involve an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3273, under 6, and Judgment 2581, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 3321
117th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision not to grant him personal promotion.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has established that, by its very nature, the decision to grant personal promotion lies at the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation and is therefore subject to only limited review. For this reason, it may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 3, 2668, under 11, or 3084, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2668, 3084
Keywords:
discretion; promotion;
Judgment 3295
116th Session, 2014
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3283
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenged the decision not to promote him earlier to grade A3.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; condition; discretion; promotion;
Judgment 3280
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; condition; discretion; personal promotion; right;
Judgment 3279
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants contest the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
"The Tribunal notes that as the decision was justified and is to be considered a proper exercise of discretion, and as the suspension of promotion exercises was planned for only one year, it is unfortunate that some staff were negatively affected by the decision but recognises that Eurocontrol must decide based on the overall well-being of the Organisation as a whole and cannot base its decisions only on the specific and particular situations of individual staff members."
Keywords:
discretion; organisation's interest; promotion;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol’s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944
Keywords:
case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;
Judgment 3273
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place his post in a certain grade group following an allegedly flawed assessment process.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently confirmed that an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
Judgment 3268
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the establishment of a staff report containing negative comments.
Considerations 9, 12 and 13
Extract:
"Assessment 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 marks given to the employee have been worked out in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for these bodies’ assessment of 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 Judgments 2834, under 7, and 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report."
"The restraint which the Tribunal must exercise [...] does not mean that it can disregard the fact that the comment accompanying the complainant’s productivity rating considerably detracts from the marking “good” and that the countersigning officer’s comments underscore that effect. [...] It follows from the foregoing that the [...] disputed staff report must be set aside."
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; rating; supervisor;
Judgment 3267
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugned the decision not to waive the time limit for lodging an internal appeal, claiming that his heavy workload constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the grant of a waiver.
Considerations 3 and 4
Extract:
"It was not in issue that under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3) the discretionary power to waive the time limits can be exercised in exceptional circumstances. That is what the rule said. In its reasons, the Board pointed to the need for certainty that is created by time limits but noted the discretion to waive them in exceptional circumstances. It did not consider there were such circumstances and that the complainant’s workload would not have prevented him from bringing his appeal in time, though it accepted that may have contributed to him overlooking the time limits.
This reasoning is quite unexceptionable. The complainant argued the reasoning contained a “contradiction”. He pointed to the Board’s acknowledgement in its reasons that the complainant’s heavy workload may possibly have been a contributing factor in the complainant overlooking the deadline. However the substance of what the Board was saying was that it was not satisfied the circumstances were exceptional. It needed to be positively satisfied that they were before it could exercise the discretionary power to waive the time limits. There has been no miscarriage of the exercise of the discretionary power. The Board was not obliged, as the complainant submitted, to involve the Administration and it had power, under Staff Rule 11.1.1(e)(3)(b), to summarily dismiss the appeal as clearly irreceivable. It did so. The complaint to the Tribunal should be dismissed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3)
Keywords:
discretion; exception; internal appeal; time limit; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discretion; post classification; time limit;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; discretion; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; performance report; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3251
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant's request to be included on the list of eligible candidates for personal promotion was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the ILO conducted the 2008 personal promotion exercise in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The ILO properly applied the new Office Procedure (No. 125, which took effect from 22 October 2009) to the 2008 personal promotion exercise. [...] Considering that the 2008 promotion exercise was launched after Office Procedure No. 125 took effect, the ILO was correct to follow its provisions for the promotion exercise, and not those of Circular No. 334, Series 6, as the complainant suggests. The complainant did not have any acquired right to the 2008 promotion exercise, promotions being considered “an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal” (see Judgments 2668, under 11, 1500, under 4, 1109, under 4, and 1973, under 5)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Office Procedure No. 125; Circular No. 334, Series 6
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1500, 1973, 2668
Keywords:
acquired right; condition; discretion; interpretation; judicial review; organisation's duties; personal promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 3239
115th Session, 2013
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal quashed the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract because it was taken on the basis of flawed performance evaluation reports.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that if the rules of an international organisation require that an appraisal form must be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned (in this case the Deputy Director, to whom the complainant reported) but also by his or her second-level supervisor (in this case the Director), this is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared between these two authorities and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member’s skills and performance. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the competent second-level supervisor should take care to ascertain that the assessment submitted for his or her approval does not require modification (see Judgment 320, under 12, 13 and 17, or more recently, Judgments 2917, under 9, and 3171, under 22). Of course, this check must be carried out with particular vigilance when the assessment occurs in a context where it is especially to be feared that the supervisor making it might lack objectivity and, a fortiori, when it takes place, as it did in the instant case, in a situation of overt antagonism (see Judgment 3171, under 23).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 320, 2917, 3171
Keywords:
discretion; performance report;
Judgment 3228
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his staff report, alleging that it was flawed by procedural errors.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, issues raised by staff reports “are discretionary and the Tribunal will set aside or amend a report only if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of fact or law, or neglect of some material fact, or misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. Those criteria are the more stringent because the EPO has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a joint body whose members are directly familiar with the workings of the Office.” (See Judgment 1688, under 5, and also Judgments 806, under 15, and 1144, under 7.) It is clear from the case law that the Tribunal will not interfere with the discretionary assessment of the decision-maker unless there is a reviewable error."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 246
ILOAT Judgment(s): 806, 1144, 1688
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; procedural flaw; rebuttal;
< 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 >
|
