Official (704,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Official
Total judgments found: 176
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
Judgment 4737
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.
Consideration 4
Extract:
A clear indicator of the status of the Secretary-General as an official, is that he or she is part of the Secretariat performing duties described in [Article 35(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty] (and elsewhere in the Treaty), namely providing the Charter Conference with all necessary assistance for the performance of its duties and entering “administrative and contractual arrangements”.
The organisation relies on other normative legal documents to argue the complainant is not an official. But the relevant legal question is not whether the Secretary-General is an official for the purposes of those rules, but whether he is for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal is satisfied he is.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; executive head; official;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The organisation contends that the Tribunal is not competent to hear this complaint for two reasons. The first which should be addressed is the argument that the complainant was not an “official” of the organisation for the purposes of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. The organisation relies in part on the terms on which it recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as contemplated by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute. The terms of recognition can be a relevant consideration in determining the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2232, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; executive head; official;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;
Judgment 4219
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal now turns directly to the question of whether the complainant was an official for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. In relation to seconded staff, it has been said by the Tribunal that “[a]s a general rule, the effect of secondment is to suspend the contractual relationship between the releasing agency and the employee, who retains the right to return to the releasing agency upon expiry of the secondment term without having to seek other employment. During secondment, [she or]he is subject to the staff regulations and rules of the receiving agency” (see Judgment 2184, consideration 4). Ultimately, of course, the status of a seconded employee has to be assessed having regard to the specific arrangements in place concerning the secondment. One case where a seconded employee was not viewed as an official or employee of the receiving organisation is Judgment 3247. Additionally, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2918, consideration 11, “[s]econdment is, in essence, a tripartite agreement which, ordinarily, involves an agreement between the person seconded and the receiving organisation, at least as to some matters”. In that case the applicability of the Staff Regulations depended on whether an individual had concluded an employment contract with the organisation and the Tribunal found the seconded staff had not. Additionally in that judgment reference was made to Judgment 703, which established that secondment does not necessarily preclude the person concerned from becoming a staff member of the organisation to which she or he is seconded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 703, 2184, 2918, 3247
Keywords:
competence; official; ratione personae; secondment; staff member;
Judgment 3705
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a re-characterisation of her employment relationship with WIPO.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; official; summary procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complainant cannot be considered an official, she does not have access to the Tribunal (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), 3049, under 4, and 3550, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017, 3049, 3550
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; official;
Judgment 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal has examined its competence ratione personae of its own motion since, when the complaint was filed [...], the complainant was formally described in his employment contract as a “consultant”, a term often used for external collaborators. In the complaint form, the complainant calls himself a staff member. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules applicable since 1 January 2012 use the terms “staff members” and “staff” indiscriminately and that WIPO describes the complainant as a temporary employee on a short-term contract. The Tribunal finds that WIPO has consistently treated the complainant as a staff member. It is clear from the evidence that his contract provided for the payment of a salary, that he was subject to the disciplinary procedure – which was actually applied to him – and that he had access to internal appeal bodies. Moreover, WIPO admits that it has outsourced duties previously exercised by the complainant, which clearly shows that they were previously regarded as being performed internally. The Tribunal is therefore competent ratione personae to hear this case. Indeed, it had already implicitly accepted that it was competent to hear the complainant’s previous complaints."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; locus standi; official; ratione personae; short-term; staff member; status of complainant;
Judgment 3383
118th Session, 2014
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant has never been an official of CERN and did not impugn a decision affecting his rights, his complaint is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3382
118th Session, 2014
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3381
118th Session, 2014
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint was summarily dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As there was no meeting of minds between the parties concerning an appointment and the complainant did not become a staff member of IOM and, therefore, not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint is clearly irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
appointment; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; official; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 3359
118th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, former judges of the ICC, impugn the implied decision of the Assembly of States Parties not to determine to which Pension Scheme they were subjected.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainants’ assertions of standing by reference to the ICC Staff Regulations. It is not disputed that the judges are “officials” of the ICC as stated in the ICC Headquarters Agreement. However, the broad definition of “officials” does not assist the complainants’ position in relation to the Staff Regulations."
Keywords:
locus standi; official; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 16 and 17
Extract:
"[T]he ICC does not dispute that the complainants are officials of the Court and that it has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, the ICC contends that since Staff Regulation 11.2 limits access to the Tribunal to staff members, the complainants do not have standing to bring the present complaint.
In effect, the ICC is arguing that the judges are without recourse for alleged violations of the terms and conditions of their appointment. This argument is rejected. The complainants are officials and their rights are not constrained by the Staff Regulations. Their right to access the Tribunal is conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute itself."
Keywords:
locus standi; official;
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.
Considerations 12 & 14
Extract:
In addition to the anomalies just highlighted, which chiefly concern the conditions under which the complainant’s performance was examined, a further aberration was such as to undermine the lawfulness of the assessment of his conduct.
In his rejoinder the complainant draws attention to the fact that on 20 April 2000 he received a warning, which ought to have been withdrawn from his personal file after three years, in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Staff Regulations, and he contends that it would therefore not have been lawful to take account of this sanction in the disputed promotion exercise.
[...]
However, there is no reason for the Tribunal to order the grant of personal promotion requested by the complainant, nor is it appropriate, in the circumstances of this case, to refer the matter back to the Organization for review.
It is clear from the submissions in the file that, between 2000 and 2003, the complainant’s attitude towards his immediate supervisor had been one of insubordination and open animosity which, as the Tribunal already noted in the above-mentioned Judgment 2468, was not what might be expected of an international civil servant. The deletion of the sanction imposed on the complainant on 20 April 2000 cannot per se disguise the existence of this unacceptable conduct, which remains a fact. Since the applicable provisions require satisfactory conduct on the part of the official in his or her last grade, this factor alone manifestly prevented the grant of personal promotion to the complainant in the 2008 exercise.
Keywords:
conduct; official;
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;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty to inform; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; official; right;
Judgment 3247
116th Session, 2014
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; official; organisation; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment; unops;
Judgment 3233
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that she was the victim of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgment 2861, under 37). The question as to whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see Judgment 2553, under 6). There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of the acts in question intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), and the Tribunal’s case law has always required that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (see Judgment 2100, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2553, 2861
Keywords:
burden of proof; conduct; definition; flaw; harassment; official;
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 9
Extract:
"[T]he essential purpose of the staff regulations of an international organisation is to promote that organisation’s interests while at the same time safeguarding the rights of its staff."
Keywords:
official; organisation's interest; purpose; right; safeguard; 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 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3120
113th Session, 2012
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
Judgment 3115
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 3112
113th Session, 2012
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
"As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 3102
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
administrative delay; career; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; misconduct; official; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; right;
Judgment 3099
112th Session, 2012
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Although staff members of international organisations necessarily have the right to protect their own interests, they must act in conformity with their duty as international civil servants."
Keywords:
international civil service principles; official; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
