|
|
 |
|
|
Age limit (387,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Age limit
Total judgments found: 29
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4259
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 4254
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, 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 1143, consideration 3, 2845, consideration 5, 3285, consideration 10, 3765, consideration 2, or 3884, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 2845, 3285, 3765, 3884
Keywords:
age limit; discretion; retirement age;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; retirement; retirement age;
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 keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 3970
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to prolong his service beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Neither of the grounds underlying the decisions of the President of the Office can be accepted as a legitimate justification for the rejection of the complainant’s request for his service to be prolonged. This rejection was therefore tainted by an obvious error of judgement.
The Tribunal notes that this flaw is particularly unacceptable given that the Selection Committee had issued a proposal favourable to the complainant’s request. That proposal was based on sound reasoning and emphasised, in addition to the complainant’s profound competence, the service’s interest in retaining him in view of the particular need of the boards of appeal for expertise in his specific field. Considering that proposal, the President ought to have at least provided adequate justification for his own position.
Keywords:
age limit; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; retirement;
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
Although the complainant’s request for a prolongation of his service was dismissed on the basis of irrelevant grounds, it cannot be said with certainty that the request would not have been rejected by the Administrative Council for another reason – assuming that the President had submitted a proposal in the complainant’s favour – in view of the broad discretion exercised by that collective body in applying Article 54 of the Service Regulations to members of boards of appeal. Nevertheless, the complainant was indisputably deprived of a valuable opportunity to have his appointment prolonged, which was all the more significant in view of the Selection Committee’s proposal in his favour, and the loss of that opportunity warrants redress.
In the light of these various considerations, the Tribunal finds, in the circumstances of the case, that the complainant must be awarded a sum equivalent to two years’ remuneration, calculated on the basis of his final net salary before he left the EPO, less the amount of payments from various retirement pensions which he received in respect of the 24 months following his departure and any professional earnings during that same period.
As this lump sum must be regarded as compensation for all material injury suffered by the complainant as a result of the refusal to prolong his service, there is no reason to grant the complainant’s claims for a recalculation of his net pension benefit from the pension scheme for permanent employees of the Office.
Keywords:
age limit; loss of opportunity; material damages;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, 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 1143, under 3, 2845, under 5, or 3765, under 2, and, specifically in respect of the application of Article 54 of the Service Regulations to members of boards of appeal, Judgments 3214, under 12, and 3285, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 2845, 3214, 3285, 3765
Keywords:
age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age;
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant also claims compensation for the material injury arising from the fact that he was informed too late of the dismissal of his request for a prolongation of his service to be able to cancel in a timely fashion the lease on his accommodation and the related telephone and Internet subscriptions.
It must be observed in this respect that the procedure for considering requests by members of boards of appeal for a prolongation of service prescribed by Communiqué No. 2/08 of 11 July 2008 does not specify an exact time limit in which the competent authority must decide on a request submitted to it. Moreover, since such a request can be granted only on the condition that a prolongation of service is in the interest of the service, a decision can logically be taken only on a date sufficiently close to that on which the employee concerned will reach normal retirement age for that authority to be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such a prolongation in the light of that criterion (see [...] Judgment 3214, under 16).
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Organisation, in view of its duty of care towards its employees, to ensure that members of boards of appeal who submit requests for their service to be prolonged are informed of the outcome thereof sufficiently far in advance to enable them to make adequate arrangements for their personal lives after they attain normal retirement age.
[...]
In this case, the complainant was not informed of the rejection of his request until 21 October 2014, 40 days before he was retired on 30 November.
The evidence makes it plain that this did not allow him to terminate the lease for his accommodation and the abovementioned subscriptions in a timely fashion. [...] The EPO will therefore be ordered to pay the complainant the sum, in the duly substantiated amount of 2,005 euros, which he claims as compensation for the material injury which he suffered under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3214
Keywords:
age limit; delay; extension beyond retirement age; material damages; refusal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; refusal;
Judgment 3939
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint dismissed; retirement;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age stipulated in a provision of this kind is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, 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 1143, under 3, 2845, under 5, 3285, under 10, or 3765, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 2845, 3285, 3765
Keywords:
age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant [complains] that [...] the Organization took more than three months to reply to his request for an extension of his appointment. [...]
It is true that the Organization was nevertheless bound to reply to this request within a reasonable period of time. However, while it would have been preferable in this case that a decision was taken sooner, UNESCO cannot be deemed to have disregarded this requirement, as the decision containing the reply was taken one month before the complainant reached the statutory retirement age and he does not contend that it was adopted too late for him to make adequate arrangements for his private life after he had attained the normal retirement age.
Keywords:
age limit; extension beyond retirement age; moral injury; reasonable time;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already emphasised, it is in the interests of an international organisation to ensure that the trade unions or associations representing its staff operate in good conditions (see Judgment 496, under 17). Hence, in order to determine whether retaining an official in service beyond the age of retirement is in the organisation’s interests, it is necessary to take account of any staff representative work carried out by the person in question (see, with respect to a similar case, Judgment 3521, under 1 to 3 and 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3521
Keywords:
age limit; equal treatment; organisation's interest; retirement; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 9
Extract:
It should be borne in mind that [...] an extension beyond the statutory retirement age, which is an exceptional measure over which the Director-General exercises broad discretion, may be granted only if, in the words of Staff Regulation 9.5, the latter “considers it to be in the interest of the Organization”.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 9.5
Keywords:
age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Indeed, although differences in treatment with regard to extensions of appointment beyond the statutory retirement age may certainly be justified by the particular circumstances of individual cases, the Tribunal cannot but note that other staff of the Office benefited at that time from the rather liberal use that was being made of the discretion to grant extensions, which is in stark contrast to the rigorous examination to which the complainant’s request was subjected.
Keywords:
age limit; equal treatment; extension beyond retirement age;
Judgment 3765
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to well-settled case law, a decision to extend an appointment beyond the statutory retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises a wide power of discretion. This measure is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, 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 1143, under 3, and 3285, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 3285
Keywords:
age limit; retirement;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint dismissed; retirement;
Judgment 3546
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the principle of extending the active service of a staff member beyond the age of 65 and the terms thereof.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 3521
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for a two-year prolongation of service beyond retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement;
Judgment 3317
117th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to prolong his service beyond the normal retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 3316
117th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to prolong his service beyond the normal retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 3285
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his first complaint, the complainant impugns the decision denying him an extension of employment beyond the age of 65. By his second complaint, he seeks to challenge the appointment of his successor.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
"Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
Keywords:
acceptance; age limit; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; request by a party; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, and plainly there is nothing abnormal in stipulating that an extension of appointment beyond that age limit, which by definition constitutes an exceptional measure, can be granted only if it is in the interest of the service."
Keywords:
age limit; career; condition; exception; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement; right;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
"In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."
Keywords:
age limit; composition of the internal appeals body; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 2845
107th Session, 2009
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations, the Director General may, in the interest of the Union, extend the age limit in exceptional cases. The Tribunal considers that "the Director General's refusal to extend the complainant's service beyond the statutory age limit constitutes an act of retaliation [...]. The Director General used his discretionary authority for purposes other than those for which it was intended, thereby committing an abuse of authority. It follows that the impugned decision must be set aside."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations
Keywords:
abuse of power; age limit; amendment to the rules; career; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2669
104th Session, 2008
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Director-General's authority to extend a staff member's service beyond the retirement age is found in Staff Regulation 301.9.5. "This provision makes it clear that a decision to grant an extension of a staff member's contract is within the discretionary authority of the Director-General. It is well established in the case law that the Tribunal will only intervene in these circumstances if it can be shown that the executive head of the organisation acted without authority, breached a rule of form or procedure, or that the decision was based on a mistake of fact or law, or overlooked an essential fact, or that clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO Staff Regulation 301.9.5
Keywords:
age limit; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; decision; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; flaw; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; refusal; retirement;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
age limit; bias; case law; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2377
98th Session, 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment beyond the statutory retirement age. Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05 "makes it clear that the decision whether or not to grant 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, none of which has been established by the complainant. The fact that such extensions may have been granted to a number of other staff members is simply irrelevant in the circumstances. No one has a right to be retained beyond the applicable normal retirement age, which in the complainant's case was 60."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: AIEA Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05
Keywords:
age limit; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; contract; difference; discretion; equal treatment; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; lack of evidence; limits; refusal; retirement; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2204
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Organisation "expresses doubt as to the locus standi of most of the complainants, who are still far from the age of retirement [...]. In fact, all the complainants, regardless of their age, have an obvious interest in ascertaining as soon as possible the conditions on which the pension rights acquired by virtue of their employment prior to joining [the Organisation] may be transferred to their new pension scheme."
Keywords:
age limit; cause of action; condition; pension; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; retirement; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2125
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The complainant's request to have his contract extended beyond retirement age was not allowed. "On the merits, the Agency is undoubtedly right in pointing out that the Director General has discretion in the matter, over which the Tribunal has only a limited power of review. This discretion enables the Agency to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [...] Although the Director General can determine the interest of the Agency, his decisions must be based on clear and coherent reasons. In this case, the reason given - that the request for an extension contained no indication as to whether any of the criteria [on the basis of which he may authorise such an extension] had been satisfied - is not valid, and the reason based on 'rejuvenation' of the staff is too general to constitute a sufficient justification for the refusal of the complainant's request." The Tribunal considers that "this reason is not in itself reprehensible, but it could be used to justify a systematic refusal to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [By setting out the criteria] the [Agency] established for itself a number of rules which it must apply."
Keywords:
age limit; contract; criteria; decision; definition; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; iloat; judicial review; official; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; patere legem; refusal; request by a party; retirement; written rule;
Judgment 1637
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16(c)
Extract:
The complainant claims an invalidity pension. The Tribunal holds that he is not entitled to one. "Articles 11.1 and 11.2, [of UNIDO's Staff Rules], which deal with total or partial disability attributable to the performance of official duties, do not apply to cases like this one where, after several months' sick leave on full pay, the member does not go back to work and the reason is not that he is unfit but that he has reached the age of retirement and has had to stop work because of a decision no longer subject to challenge."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 11.1 AND 11.2 OF UNIDO'S STAFF RULE
Keywords:
age limit; invalidity; res judicata; retirement; separation from service; service-incurred; sick leave; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
