|
|
 |
|
|
Proposal (621,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Proposal
Total judgments found: 15
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 13
Extract:
"[A] provision [...], which grants the executive head of an organisation the power to propose that another organ adopt a decision, authorises that person to refrain from making such a proposal if he or she sees no reason for it (see Judgment 585, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 585
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; proposal; staff regulations and rules;
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 2943
109th Session, 2010
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The essence of a recommendation or proposal is that it is directed to some definite course of action."
Keywords:
proposal; purpose; recommendation;
Judgment 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2657
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 2584
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2534
101st Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[W]hile the complainant alleges that the sanction proposal in itself caused him moral and material injury, the defendant rightly argues that the facts on which he relies in claiming compensation for material damage, concerning his retention in Dakar and the conditions of his transfer to Geneva, are unconnected with the impugned decision. In this case moral injury could arise only if the proposal to apply a sanction had been implemented, but such was not the case and there is no evidence in the submissions to suggest ill will or any disregard for the complainant’s dignity on the part of the Organization.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proposal;
Judgment 2058
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [Organization] is right to object to the receivability of [the complaintant's] claim to the quashing of the invitation to him to write letters of apology. Although one of a set of measures devised by the organization in an attempt to put an end to this regrettable affair, the 'invitation' does not constitute, contrary to what the complainant asserts, a decision that can be set aside. If, however, the measure was proved to be excessive, as the complainant contends it is, his claim to compensation for moral injury arising from the affront to his dignity could be justified." (This is not the case here: see consideration 14.)
Keywords:
claim; complaint; decision; decision quashed; moral injury; proposal; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity;
Judgment 1406
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant may not validly argue that she held a contract with the organization. Although she and various officers of the WHO did sign a proposal to extend her contract, it "was never approved by the competent officers; besides, it did not purport to be a decision and was not binding upon the WHO. So there is no valid basis in law for the rights she is claiming from the organization."
Keywords:
binding character; contract; decision; effect; non-renewal of contract; proposal;
Judgment 884
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant seeks to have his professional experience reckoned anew. He contends that new guidelines supersede the rule precluding the reckoning of experience gained before the age of twenty-five. The Tribunal holds that, although replacement of the rule has been proposed, "until a decision has been taken by the competent authority the 25-year rule remains in force."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; age limit; amendment to the rules; condition; professional experience; proposal; provision; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 585
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The applicable Staff Rule says that it is the Administrative Council which may decide to reclassify a post on a proposal by the President. As the President saw no reason for regrading the complainant, he had no proposal to put to the Council.
Keywords:
competence; executive body; executive head; post classification; proposal;
Judgment 537
49th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Executive Board adopted the French version of [WHO Staff Rule] 1030.3.4, and the Executive Board alone could amend it. Instead it was the Director-General who decided to alter the French text, and the fact that he did is immaterial since according to Rule 020 the Director-General's authority is limited to making proposals for amendment. [...] Accordingly, his so-called 'correction' is in itself null and void. Either he discovers an error, and the original text must be applied; or else he alters the adopted text without being competent to do so."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 020 AND 1030.3.4 OF WHO STAFF RULES
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence; decision-maker; executive body; executive head; proposal; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 457
46th Session, 1981
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants failed to get a promotion and addressed an appeal within the applicable time limits to the Director. He failed to take a decision on the matter within the sixty-day time, relying on the major criteria for compiling lists of officials for promotion. The final decision fell within the discretionary authority of the Director, who was free to endorse the recommendations of the Promotion Committee, although he was not bound to. There were no grounds for finding an abuse of discretionary authority. Complaint dismissed.
Keywords:
advisory opinion; binding character; discretion; executive head; promotion; promotion board; proposal;
Judgment 278
37th Session, 1976
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Administrative Council "defined its position as follows: 'The provisions of the Staff Regulations and other texts relating to the staff should so far as possible match those applicable to European Communities staff.' It appears clearly from this statement, the precise purport of which is indicated by use of the term 'so far as possible', that the Administrative Council did not decide to ensure full conformity between [its Staff Regulations] and those of the European Communities, that it entered into no legal commitment in that regard and that it merely made a statement of intent which did not provide for any sanction."
Keywords:
binding character; coordinated organisations; enforcement; executive body; law of european communities; proposal; rule of another organisation; statement of intent;
Judgment 277
37th Session, 1976
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The statement merely says that the Council has adopted a series of proposals the purpose of which is to bring the salary scales and related benefits in line with those applicable in the European Communities. "That is a mere statement of intent which did not imply any firm undertaking by the Institute and which consequently did not create rights upon which the staff may rely. Hence the complainant cannot rely upon that statement to support his claim to entitlement under the provisions applicable to the staff of the European Communities."
Keywords:
binding character; enforcement; executive body; law of european communities; pension; proposal; right; rule of another organisation; salary; statement of intent;
Judgment 89
15th Session, 1965
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The charges against the complainant warranted the Director-General's decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In offering him the choice between resignation and appearing before the Joint Committee, the Director-General acted freely and out of good-will. "It was open to the complainant, if he so desired, to defend himself against the charges preferred against him. The choice that lay before him was therefore entirely free."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; executive head; lack of consent; misconduct; proposal; resignation; right to reply; subsidiary;
|
|
|
|
|
