ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

Site Map \| Contact	français

	> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Mistake of law (567,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of law
Total judgments found: 46

1, 2, 3 | next >

Judgment 4906

138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant a form� des recours en r�vision des jugements 4567, 4568 et 4569.

Considerations 5-6

Extract:

Au soutien de ses recours, le requ�rant affirme que les jugements 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 et 4732 seraient entach�s d�erreurs mat�rielles et que le Tribunal aurait omis de tenir compte de faits d�termin�s. En outre, il invoque l�existence d�un fait nouveau.

S�agissant, tout d�abord, des erreurs mat�rielles, celles-ci consisteraient, selon le requ�rant, en de pr�tendues �fausses constatations de faits d�termin�s�, �fausses constatations de faits� et constatations �sans valeur juridique et fausse[s]�, qui auraient fond� le dispositif des jugements 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 et 4732. Le Tribunal constate toutefois que les griefs de l�int�ress� ne s�analysent pas comme tenant � l�invocation d�erreurs mat�rielles, mais comme visant seulement � contester la position qu�il a adopt�e dans les jugements en question. Or, les appr�ciations d�ordre juridique que le Tribunal porte dans un jugement ne sauraient �tre utilement critiqu�es dans le cadre d�un recours en r�vision (voir les jugements 4440, au consid�rant 4, et 3984, au consid�rant 5).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732

Keywords:

admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4883

138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: La requ�rante conteste la d�cision de classer sa plainte pour harc�lement � l�issue de la proc�dure d��valuation pr�liminaire de celle-ci.

Considerations 7-8

Extract:

Le Tribunal rappelle [�] que, lorsqu�une telle �tape est pr�vue dans le cadre de la proc�dure d�examen d�une plainte pour harc�lement, l��valuation pr�liminaire a pour seul but de d�terminer s�il y a lieu d�ouvrir une enqu�te en vue d�instruire cette plainte. Il s�ensuit que, au stade de l��valuation pr�liminaire, la constatation prima facie du caract�re s�rieux de certains des �l�ments all�gu�s par l�auteur de la plainte � l�appui de celle-ci suffit, en principe, � justifier la poursuite de la proc�dure, sachant que c�est dans le cadre de l��ventuelle enqu�te appel�e � suivre l��valuation pr�liminaire qu�il conviendra de proc�der � la recherche compl�te des preuves (voir, en ce sens, notamment les jugements 4900, �galement prononc� ce jour, aux consid�rants 27 et 28, 4746, au consid�rant 9, et 3640, au consid�rant 5).
En l�esp�ce, le Tribunal constate que la mat�rialit� des faits all�gu�s par la requ�rante �tait, pour l�essentiel, corrobor�e par les t�moignages recueillis au cours de l��valuation pr�liminaire.
Le Tribunal estime que de tels faits entraient prima facie dans la d�finition du harc�lement r�sultant des dispositions du point 18.2 du Manuel des ressources humaines reproduites au consid�rant 4 ci-dessus. En effet, les actes et paroles reproch�s � M. M. pouvaient �tre raisonnablement per�us comme constituant notamment un comportement vexatoire et/ou importun sur le lieu de travail ayant pour effet de porter atteinte � la dignit� de la plaignante et/ou de cr�er un environnement de travail mena�ant, hostile, d�gradant et/ou humiliant.
Dans ces conditions, c�est � tort que Mme T. a consid�r� qu�il n�y avait pas lieu d�ouvrir une enqu�te faute de �commencement de preuve de harc�lement�.
Cette seule irr�gularit� suffit � justifier l�annulation de la d�cision attaqu�e, sans qu�il soit besoin de se prononcer sur les autres moyens de la requ�te.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 4746, 4900

Keywords:

harassment; mistake of law; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4840

138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.

Consideration 8

Extract:

With respect to decisions pertaining to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, the Tribunal has also emphasized the limited scope of the review it can exercise. In Judgment 4146, consideration 3, it stated, in particular, the following:
�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, 4146

Keywords:

fixed-term; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;

Consideration 7

Extract:

With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
�[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee�s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal 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 law or of fact, 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 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).� (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713

Keywords:

judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4753

137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.

Consideration 14

Extract:

The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant�s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant�s personnel file.

Keywords:

administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;
Judgment 4736

136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.

Consideration 7

Extract:

The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440

Keywords:

application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4660

136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General�s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.

Consideration 15

Extract:

By imposing a disciplinary measure of summary dismissal without termination indemnities on the complainant, the Secretary General therefore breached the provisions of aforementioned Staff Rule 12.1.3(1)(i) and thereby committed an error of law. The Tribunal observes that it is even possible to consider that this measure, insofar as it amounts in practice to a summary dismissal for mere misconduct, is not among those listed in Staff Rule 12.1.3(1) and that the Secretary General therefore breached the principle nulla poena sine lege, applicable in disciplinary matters, according to which an authority cannot lawfully impose a sanction other than those provided for in the organisation�s staff rules and regulations (see, in particular, Judgment 757, consideration 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 757

Keywords:

disciplinary measure; mistake of law;
Judgment 4569

134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.

Consideration 4

Extract:

[T]he complainant simply challenges the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in the two judgments in question, as he has already done in his application for review of Judgment 4370. However, these may not be challenged in an application for review (see Judgment 4440, consideration 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370, 4440

Keywords:

inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4440

132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.

Consideration 4

Extract:

[L]es appr�ciations d�ordre juridique que le Tribunal porte dans un jugement ne sauraient �tre utilement critiqu�es dans le cadre d�un recours en r�vision (voir le jugement 3984, au consid�rant 5).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984

Keywords:

inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4378

131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close after an initial review and without conducting a formal investigation his harassment complaint against the WHO Internal Oversight Services.

Consideration 4

Extract:

It is understandable why the complainant�s formal harassment complaint was directed against IOS. He was not necessarily informed who from that department was involved in his case. The fact that the complainant�s harassment complaint was directed against the entire IOS did not absolve WHO from investigating (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14; see also Judgment 4207, consideration 15), as the complaint could readily be construed as targeting the persons within IOS who had dealt with the complainant�s case, even if their identity was known only to the Administration. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that paragraph 3.1.4 of the WHO Policy provides that �[h]arassment may involve a group�. Finally, WHO cannot ignore that the case law of the Tribunal recognizes institutional harassment (see Judgments 3250, 4111, 4243 and 4345) and that it should take this into account when interpreting its own rules. Accordingly, the external reviewer�s finding that the complainant�s harassment complaint was beyond the scope of the WHO Policy and was, therefore, irreceivable is an error of law. However, this error of law does not have any impact on the outcome of the present complaint, as the external reviewer also conducted an initial review of the substance of the complainant�s harassment complaint, as provided in the WHO Policy.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3347, 4111, 4207, 4243, 4345

Keywords:

harassment; investigation; mistake of law;
Judgment 4286

130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.

Consideration 17

Extract:

The Appeal Board�s approach to the substance of the complainant�s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board�s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant�s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant�s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085

Keywords:

harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
Judgment 4129

127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.

Consideration 6

Extract:

[T]he plea of a mistake of law is not an admissible ground for review (see Judgment 1529, consideration 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529

Keywords:

inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 3987

126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.

Consideration 3

Extract:

The gravamen of the application for review involves a contention that the Tribunal disregarded the fundamental facts of the case and, in the result, the amount ordered by way of damages was far too low. Indeed it is contended that the �complainant felt such paltry amounts to be rather insulting rather than compensatory�. But in substance, the complainant is simply challenging the assessment by the Tribunal of the damages which should be awarded, and that matter is res judicata unless an error is established of the type which can found a review. No such error is identified.

Keywords:

mistake of law;
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 4

Extract:

Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that �[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board� by the complainant.
In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.

Keywords:

harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure before the tribunal;

Consideration 5

Extract:

The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490

Keywords:

final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3905

125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

Consideration 15

Extract:

It is evident that, in its report of 22 February 2016, the Appeals Board viewed the notification of the abolition of the complainant�s position and the termination of his appointment in the letter of 16 June as the communication of a single decision. This was a fundamental error of law. Decisions to abolish a post and terminate an appointment are separate and distinct decisions.

Keywords:

abolition of post; internal appeals body; mistake of law; termination of employment;
Judgment 3490

120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.

Consideration 18

Extract:

"It follows from the JAB�s failure to obtain and consider evidence central to the claim that its conclusion and recommendation are tainted by an error of law. As the Director General adopted the conclusion and accepted the recommendation, his decision is also tainted by an error of law (see Judgment 2742, under 40)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742

Keywords:

discretion; disregard of essential fact; final decision; mistake of law;
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 2741

105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 6

Extract:

When the Tribunal is seised of a complaint against a disciplinary penalty, it must quash the penalty if it is based on an error of fact or of law, overlooked some essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 2262, under 2, and 2365, under 4(a) in fine).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2262, 2365

Keywords:

disciplinary measure; discretion; mistake of law; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2393

98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 13

Extract:

The general principles also allow that a mistake as to a candidate�s qualifications or experience may constitute a mistake of fact or result in some material fact being overlooked. It is this consideration that is invoked by the complainant�s contentions that he had greater experience and skills than the successful candidate, and that the interview panel and the FAO were mistaken as to his management skills. However, and as held in Judgment 1827, the selection of candidates necessarily �requires a high degree of judgment� with which the Tribunal will interfere only if a serious defect is demonstrated. And as was also held in that judgment, a defect of that kind is not established merely by asserting that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.

Keywords:

appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; selection procedure;
Judgment 2029

90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consid�rant 4

Extract:

"The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."

Keywords:

application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1878

87th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 15

Extract:

The complainant [...] submits that lack of proportionality is an error of law: see Judgments 203 [...], 1070 [...] and 1271 [...]. According to the Tribunal's jurisprudence, a sanction out of porportion to the subjective and objective nature of the offence is a mistake of law and since the decision is flawed it must be quashed. The complainant refers to cases where the material or moral interests of an international organisation were jeopardised and the Tribunal confirmed decisions of summary dismissal for serious misconduct: see Judgments 63 [...], 159 [...] and 969 [...]. Insulting a colleague in the privacy of his office and then offering apologies that evening and the next morning, which were accepted in writing, does not constitute serious misconduct. Her actions did not jeopardise the material or moral interests of the Organization.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 63, 159, 203, 969, 1070, 1271

Keywords:

disciplinary measure; mistake of law; proportionality; serious misconduct;

1, 2, 3 | next >

Last updated: 13.09.2024

^ top

Mistake of law (567,-666)

Judgment 4906

Considerations 5-6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4883

Considerations 7-8

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4840

Consideration 8

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Consideration 7

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4753

Consideration 14

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4736

Consideration 7

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4660

Consideration 15

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4569

Consideration 4

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4440

Consideration 4

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4378

Consideration 4

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4286

Consideration 17

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4129

Consideration 6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3987

Consideration 3

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 3934

Consideration 4

Extract:

Keywords:

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3905

Consideration 15

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 3490

Consideration 18

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords: