Abuse of power (927,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Abuse of power
Total judgments found: 161
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 3678
122nd Session, 2016
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[M]isuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgment 2116, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3610
121st Session, 2016
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former employee of the Global Fund, challenges her separation agreement, alleging irregularities and abuse of authority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; misuse of authority; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the present case, the Global Fund used a tool (the PIP) which is explicitly designed to correct identified underperformance, to address an issue of potential future underperformance. The Tribunal finds the misuse of the PIP to be an abuse of authority which rendered the process non-transparent and arbitrary, as according to the defendant’s allegations the option of going through the PIP could be offered indistinctly to each employee.
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3543
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not prove the abuse of power she alleges, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint dismissed; misuse of authority;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that it has consistently held that misuse of authority cannot be presumed and that the burden of proof lies with the person who pleads it (see Judgment 2116, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3501
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Deputy Director of WIPO’s Communications Division.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; complaint dismissed; joinder; misuse of authority; transfer;
Judgment 3500
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Head of the Executive Education Program.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; complaint dismissed; discretion; joinder; misuse of authority; transfer;
Judgment 3221
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges harassment and abuse of power on the part of the Organization.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3193
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"In a case where a complainant establishes that the disputed decision involved an abuse of power, the appropriate relief is often to set aside the decision. Indeed, such a decision should not stand in the face of the conclusion that it involved an abuse of power. [However], in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; moral injury; organisation's interest; post classification; reassignment; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;
Considerations 10-12
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that there was no evidentiary foundation for the HBA’s finding that the decisions were part of an approved plan.
It is clear from [these] considerations that the reclassification was inextricably linked to the lateral reassignment request. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the reclassification and lateral reassignment decisions were not motivated by the needs of the Organization or the particular needs of NMH. Rather they were made to facilitate Mr A.’s personal interest in having his Assistant continue to work for him in his new position.
[I]n the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed.
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3174
114th Session, 2013
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implicit rejection of his request for moral damages for alleged harassment and abuse of authority.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2203, 2389, 3009
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint dismissed; harassment; misuse of authority; moral injury;
Judgment 3172
114th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of her post and the decision not to extend her appointment as procedurally flawed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"A decision taken for an improper purpose is an abuse of authority. It follows that when a complainant challenges a discretionary decision, he or she by necessary implication also challenges the validity of the reasons underpinning that decision. In this respect, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the post to determine whether the impugned decision was tainted by abuse of authority."
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; breach; competence of tribunal; decision; discretion; evidence; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3090
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[WIPO's] employment relationship with the complainant always rested on short-term contracts [...]. These contracts were systematically renewed without any notable breaks, with the result that [...] the complainant pursued a career in the Organization for more than seven years, i.e. until the expiry of [her last] contract. This long succession of short-term contracts gave rise to a legal relationship between the complainant and WIPO which was equivalent to that on which permanent staff members of an organisation may rely. In considering that the complainant belonged to the category of short-term employees to whom the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules do not apply and who do not enjoy legal protection comparable to that enjoyed by other staff members, the defendant failed to recognise the real nature of its legal relationship with the complainant. In so doing it committed an error of law and misused the rules governing short-term contracts."
Keywords:
abuse of power; applicable law; career; contract; difference; extension of contract; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; temporary-indefinite; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3016
111th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Rejection of the complainant's request for reclassification of her post following a classification exercise.
"The classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment unless certain grounds are established. Consistent precedent has it that 'the Tribunal will not interfere with the decision [...] unless it was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooks some material fact, or is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts' (see Judgment 1281, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; post; post classification; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3006
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere 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; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 2956
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Secretary of the Board of Appeal informed the complainant that the statement of intention to appeal he had sent to the Board was irreceivable but "this official plainly had no authority to take a decision in place of the Board itself".
Keywords:
abuse of power; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; misuse of authority;
Judgment 2930
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 2885
108th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[I]t is convenient to note that there is a "misuse of authority where an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation's best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve" (see Judgment 1129, under 8). It may be accepted that it is a misuse of authority if a post is abolished in order to circumvent the relevant procedures applicable in the case of unsatisfactory performance. Even so, "misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it" (see Judgment 2116, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 2116
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; grounds; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
"[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
"[W]ith respect to the Centre's assertion that this implementing measure was approved by the Council [...], the Tribunal observes that the adoption of a so-called "interpretative clarification" that purports to give the Executive Director the authority to take certain action cannot validate an earlier decision taken without the requisite authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; enforcement; executive body; interpretation; misuse of authority;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he date on which an employee takes up his or her duties depends on the number of staff the Organisation needs in order to function efficiently, which is a matter lying within its discretionary authority. Of course this does not exempt it from objectively weighing its own interests against those of the new recruit. In particular, it must not act arbitrarily or abuse its authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; bias; date; discretion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 86
Extract:
[T]here can be no doubt that the decision of 3 November 2006 was taken in retaliation for her having exercised her right to seek review of the decision of 25 October and for having pursued her claims of harassment. So much is clear both from the Secretary-General’s letter of 3 November 2006 and the submissions filed in WMO’s reply. Retaliation on this basis is no different from retaliation for pursuing an internal appeal which, as the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 2540, under 27, “is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
Keywords:
abuse of power; exemplary damages; harassment; internal appeal; misuse of authority; retaliation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
