|
|
 |
|
|
Role of the Tribunal (925,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Role of the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 84
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4905
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de fixer à 15 pour cent seulement le taux d’atteinte à l’intégrité physique résultant d’un accident professionnel et celle de lui allouer, en conséquence, la somme de 11 874,60 francs suisses à titre d’indemnité pour atteinte à l’intégrité physique.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Le requérant demande également au Tribunal d’ordonner «l’octroi d’une atteinte à l’intégrité physique de 100 %».
Néanmoins, il n’appartient pas au Tribunal d’ordonner une telle mesure, celle-ci, qui constituerait une injonction à l’égard de l’Organisation et appellerait, de surcroît, une appréciation d’ordre médical, échappant ainsi à sa compétence à ce double titre.
Keywords:
professional accident; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4904
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de ne pas reconnaître qu’il est atteint d’une invalidité.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[S]elon [l]a jurisprudence [du Tribunal], s’il n’a pas qualité pour substituer sa propre appréciation à celle formulée par une commission statuant en matière médicale, telle une commission d’invalidité, il est en revanche pleinement compétent pour contrôler la régularité de la procédure suivie et pour examiner si l’avis rendu par cette commission est entaché d’erreur matérielle ou de contradiction, s’il a négligé des faits essentiels ou s’il a tiré du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées (voir notamment les jugements 4709, au considérant 4, 4585, au considérant 10, 4473, au considérant 13, 4237, au considérant 5, 3994, au considérant 5, 2996, au considérant 11, 2361, au considérant 9, et 1284, au considérant 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709
Keywords:
invalidity; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4903
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste le refus de le sélectionner pour un poste de technicien en génie civil.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[E]n matière de nomination, le choix du candidat nommé relève du pouvoir d’appréciation de l’autorité compétente pour procéder à la nomination au sein de l’organisation concernée. Une telle décision ne peut ainsi faire l’objet que d’un contrôle restreint par le Tribunal et ne sera censurée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, est entachée d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte de faits essentiels, est entachée de détournement de pouvoir ou tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées (voir, notamment, les jugements 3652, au considérant 7, et 3372, au considérant 12). En conséquence, une personne qui s’est portée candidate à un poste qu’une organisation a décidé de pourvoir par voie de concours, et dont la candidature n’a finalement pas été retenue, se doit de démontrer que la procédure de sélection a été entachée d’un vice substantiel, en d’autres termes, que cette procédure a présenté de graves imperfections (voir en ce sens, notamment, les jugements 4625, au considérant 3, 4001, au considérant 4, 3669, au considérant 4, et 1827, au considérant 6). Il est également entendu qu’en matière de concours il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de substituer son appréciation à celle des organes de sélection compétents (voir les jugements 4594, au considérant 8, 4100, au considérant 5, et 1595, au considérant 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4902
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2019 rating such performance as “fair”.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Given the limited scope of the power of review of the Tribunal on performance appraisals as constantly indicated in the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein), the fact that the complainant’s view of his performance is different than that of his supervisor is clearly not sufficient to set aside this evaluation and order that another one be undertaken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Keywords:
performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4901
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has long recognized the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals. In this regard, in Judgment 4564, considerations 2 and 3, the Tribunal stated the following:
“2. [T]he Tribunal observes that, in requesting that the Tribunal should itself determine the new ratings to be awarded under the various headings of the staff report concerned, the complainant plainly misunderstands the nature of the review with which the Tribunal is tasked. It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation, to conduct an assessment of an employee’s merits instead of the competent reporting officer or the various supervisors and appeals bodies which may be called upon to revise that assessment. Consequently, as it is framed, the request for the staff report concerned to be amended can only be dismissed (see, to that effect, Judgment 4258, considerations 2 and 3, and the case law cited therein).
The Tribunal may only set aside that staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit to the [organization concerned] the task of reviewing the assessment concerned in light of the grounds of its judgment, if it considers it necessary to make such an order within the limits of the restricted power of review which the Tribunal may exercise in this area, the scope of which will be reiterated below.
3. As the Tribunal has repeatedly held, assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority. [...]”
(See also Judgments 4787, consideration 5, 4786, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4713, 4786, 4787
Keywords:
performance; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4894
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
In its opinion of 1 December 2014, the Internal Appeals Committee firstly considered its role and secondly the merits of the complainant’s internal appeal. As to its role, it firstly noted, correctly, the limited role of the Tribunal in reviewing staff reports which are discretionary in nature. However, and importantly (a matter not understood by all internal appeals bodies), it said that an internal appeal body can “determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been made” citing Judgment 3161, consideration 6.
[…]
It is now convenient to consider the additional relief sought by the complainant. This includes that the text in his staff report for 2009 be amended by order of the Tribunal. But it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, this would be review of a report concerning the appraisal of the complainant some considerable time ago. There should be no such remittal though the complainant may gain some comfort from the conclusions of the Internal Appeals Committee (together with the observations of the Tribunal in this judgment), whose opinion should be included in his personnel file, if it is not already. It is also assumed that the present judgment will be included in his personnel file.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4893
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2008-2009.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
It is convenient to focus on the relief the complainant seeks. [...] His primary relief, as articulated in the rejoinder, is that the Tribunal “take a final decision on the merits”. The Tribunal takes this to include a reference to a claim made in the complaint form under the heading “[r]elief claimed”, that “the text [under] productivity in [the complainant’s] staff report [for] 2008-2009 should be amended by replacing the words [‘very good’] by [‘outstanding’], and the box marking should be amended correspondingly”. […]
However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. However, the complainant now eschews any desire to have the matter remitted. Accordingly, what remains is the impermissible request to the Tribunal to undertake the evaluation itself. This claim must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4892
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2008-2009 and the decision not to initiate a harassment procedure against her reporting officer.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The second subheading referred to earlier is that “[t]he contested [staff report] is unjustified”. This is tantamount to an invitation to the Tribunal to enter the issue of whether a particular assessment in a performance appraisal report is appropriate. However, it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1). The Tribunal noted in Judgment 4786 that it can, if the report was the product of one of the legal flaws listed in Judgment 4564, consideration 3, set aside the contested staff report at the same time as the impugned decision and remit the matter to the Organisation for review. But that is done only if a legal flaw is demonstrated. It is not in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4786
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4891
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Before considering the complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal finds it convenient to recall the following statement that it made in Judgment 4795, consideration 9, concerning the limited power of review that it exercises in matters of staff appraisals:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
In other words, given that the staff report calls for a value judgement and the exercise of a discretionary power by the responsible bodies of the Organisation, the complainant must convince the Tribunal that the EPO breached a procedural requirement, that the staff report was made without authority or by an incompetent authority, or resulted from an abuse of authority, that a manifest error of law or fact was made, or that clearly wrong conclusions were reached from the record or from the overlook of material facts (see also Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4713, 4731, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4890
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Considerations 6 and 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has a limited power of review in situations involving performance appraisals of staff members. It is not the role of the Tribunal to supplant the administrative authorities of an international organisation in the assessment of the merits of a staff member. The Tribunal must rather recognize the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such assessment which involves a value judgement. In Judgment 4795, consideration 9, the Tribunal indeed recalled the following regarding its limited power of review in matters of staff appraisal:
“[...] As the Tribunal has repeatedly held in its case law, assessment of an employee’s merits during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).”
(See also, to the same effect, Judgments 4731, consideration 4, and 4713, consideration 11.)
Moreover, in Judgment 4794, consideration 12, the Tribunal said the following in a situation where, like here, the complainant was asking that the assessment of his productivity be reviewed:
“Furthermore, aside from the fact that the Organisation has responded to the complainant’s criticisms factually, precisely and clearly in its submissions, the exercise that the complainant is asking the Tribunal to undertake with regard to the assessment of his productivity and his overall evaluation amounts in reality to a re-evaluation of his performance for 2016. However, that is a misconstruction of the Tribunal’s role, given the limited power of review the Tribunal may exercise in this matter according to its settled case law (see, for example, the aforementioned Judgment 4564, consideration 3, which was cited in the aforementioned Judgment 4637, consideration 13).”
[…] Reporting officers are not bound by ratings of previous staff reports and they must in all situations fairly and objectively assess the staff member’s productivity analysing each reporting period separately (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 6, and 1688, consideration 6). […]
[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to substitute its own assessment to the value judgement made by the competent bodies of the Organisation in their rating of the work productivity of the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4637, 4794, 4795
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation; performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4884
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour harcèlement à l’issue d’une enquête.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle la question de savoir si l’on se trouve en présence d’un cas de harcèlement se résout à la lumière d’un examen rigoureux de toutes les circonstances objectives ayant entouré les actes dénoncés (voir, notamment, le jugement 4471, au considérant 18) et l’accusation de harcèlement doit être corroborée par des faits précis dont la preuve incombe à celui qui affirme en avoir été victime, étant entendu qu’il n’a pas à démontrer que la personne accusée aurait agi intentionnellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4344, au considérant 3, 3871, au considérant 12, et 3692, au considérant 18). Lorsqu’une procédure spécifique est prévue par l’organisation concernée, celle-ci doit être suivie et les règles doivent être correctement appliquées. Le Tribunal a également considéré que l’enquête doit être objective, rigoureuse et approfondie, en ce sens qu’elle doit être menée d’une manière permettant de s’enquérir de tous les faits pertinents sans pour autant compromettre la réputation du membre du personnel mis en cause et en donnant à ce dernier la possibilité de vérifier les preuves avancées à son encontre et de répondre aux accusations formulées (voir, notamment, les jugements 4663, aux considérants 10 à 13, 4253, au considérant 3, 3314, au considérant 14, et 2771, au considérant 15). Pour établir qu’il y a eu harcèlement, la preuve des faits allégués ne doit cependant pas être établie au-delà de tout doute raisonnable, contrairement à ce qui est exigé lorsqu’est entamée une procédure disciplinaire à l’encontre de l’auteur des faits de harcèlement (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4663, au considérant 12, et 4289, au considérant 10). L’élément essentiel dans la reconnaissance d’un harcèlement est la perception que la personne concernée peut raisonnablement et objectivement avoir d’actes ou de propos qui sont propres à la dévaloriser ou à l’humilier (voir les jugements 4663, au considérant 13, et 4541, au considérant 8).
Quant à la portée du contrôle qu’il peut exercer au sujet d’une décision de rejet d’une plainte pour harcèlement, le Tribunal rappelle qu’il ne lui appartient pas de réévaluer les preuves dont dispose l’organe chargé d’enquêter, qui, en sa qualité de première instance d’examen des faits, a eu l’avantage de rencontrer et d’entendre directement la plupart des personnes concernées et d’évaluer la fiabilité de leurs déclarations (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4291, au considérant 12, et 3593, au considérant 12). Il n’interviendra en conséquence qu’en cas d’erreur manifeste (voir, notamment, les jugements 4344, au considérant 8, 4091, au considérant 17, et 3597, au considérant 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4289, 4291, 4344, 4344, 4471, 4541, 4663
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; organisation's duties; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste le non-renouvellement de son engagement à titre temporaire.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Il convient de rappeler que, en vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’engagement d’un fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint de la part du Tribunal. Elle ne peut être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, si elle viole une règle de forme ou de procédure, si elle repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, si son auteur a omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou a tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou si elle est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4654, au considérant 16, 4172, au considérant 5, 2148, au considérant 23, ou 1052, au considérant 4). A fortiori, il en va ainsi lorsque, comme en l’espèce, le litige porte sur le non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement à titre temporaire précisant expressément que son titulaire n’avait aucune garantie de renouvellement ou de conversion en tout autre type de contrat au sein de l’UNESCO.
Cela étant dit, il n’en demeure pas moins que, toujours conformément à la jurisprudence du Tribunal applicable de façon générale en matière de relations contractuelles, une décision de non-renouvellement doit se fonder sur des raisons objectives et valables, et non sur des raisons arbitraires ou irrationnelles (voir, notamment, les jugements 4809, au considérant 10, 4654, au considérant 16, 4495, au considérant 15, 3769, au considérant 7, 3353, au considérant 15, 2708, au considérant 12, 1154, au considérant 4, et 1128, au considérant 2). Ces raisons doivent par ailleurs être communiquées au fonctionnaire concerné (voir, notamment, les jugements 4809, au considérant 10, 3914, au considérant 14, et 3444, au considérant 8), sans qu’il soit cependant nécessaire que cette motivation figure dans la décision de non-renouvellement elle-même (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4368, au considérant 15, 3914, au considérant 15, et 1750, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 1128, 1154, 2148, 2708, 3353, 3444, 3769, 3914, 4172, 4368, 4495, 4654, 4809
Keywords:
discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4851
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of the probationary period.
Considerations 4 and 9
Extract:
Turning to the merits of the complaint, it should be recalled that, according to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the purpose of probation is to permit an organization to assess the probationer’s suitability for a position, and, accordingly, an organization’s exercise of its discretion regarding decisions concerned with probationary matters, including the confirmation of appointment, the extensions of a probationary period, and the identification of its own interests and requirements, ought to be accorded a high degree of deference. However, a decision not to confirm a probationer’s appointment may be set aside if it was made in breach of the probationer’s contract, of the organization’s own regulations and rules, or of applicable general principles of law as enunciated by the Tribunal. The general principles are intended to ensure that an international organization acts in good faith and honours its duty of care towards probationers and respects their dignity (see, for example, Judgment 4481, considerations 3 and 4, citing Judgment 3440, consideration 2). The Tribunal has also stated that, in the course of making the assessment, an organization must establish clear objectives against which performance will be assessed, provide the necessary guidance for the performance of the duties, identify in a timely manner the unsatisfactory aspects of the performance so that remedial steps may be taken, and give a specific warning where continued employment is in jeopardy (see, for example, Judgments 4748, consideration 8, 4450, consideration 3, and 4282, consideration 3).
[…]
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Organization’s decision not to confirm the complainant’s appointment, based on unsatisfactory performance at the end of the probationary period, is justified and in accordance with its own rules […]. The PIP and its content clearly indicated the concerns of the complainant’s supervisors and identified the unsatisfactory aspects of her performance in a timely manner so that remedial steps could be taken. The PIP also showed that the complainant was offered training opportunities, regular guidance and support to address the deficiencies. […]
In any event, considering that the complainant had been informed, on several occasions, about not achieving the objectives, she must have been aware that the failure to make the necessary improvements regarding her performance at the level expected of her post by the PIP’s specified date of 20 February 2017 could likely result in her appointment not being confirmed at the end of the probationary period. Unfortunately, she did not make the requisite improvements.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3440, 4282, 4450, 4481, 4748
Keywords:
discretion; probationary period; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.
Consideration 3
Extract:
En vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision relative à la restructuration des services d’une organisation internationale, telle qu’une suppression de poste, relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint. Il appartient cependant au Tribunal de vérifier si cette décision a été prise dans le respect des règles de compétence, de forme et de procédure, si elle ne repose pas sur une erreur de fait ou de droit, si elle n’est pas entachée de détournement de pouvoir et si son auteur n’a pas omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou tiré du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4139, au considérant 2, 4099, au considérant 3, 3582, au considérant 6, 2933, au considérant 10, 2510, au considérant 10, et 1131, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099, 4139
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although in some specific situations the Tribunal may determine whether the harassment occurred (see, for example, Judgments 4241, consideration 15, and 4207, consideration 21), in the present case, the Tribunal is not in a position to determine whether the complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment is well founded, as neither the parties’ written submissions nor the evidence presented before it allow it to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4241
Keywords:
evidence; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; submissions;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
To start with, it is convenient to recall the Tribunal’s well-settled case law on disciplinary decisions. In Judgment 4745, consideration 5, the Tribunal aptly wrote the following in this regard:
“[Disciplinary] decisions fall within the discretionary authority of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal must determine whether or not a discretionary decision was taken with authority, was in regular form, whether the correct procedure was followed and, as regards its legality under the organization’s own rules, whether the organization’s decision was based on an error of law or fact, or whether essential facts had not been taken into consideration, or whether conclusions which are clearly false had been drawn from the documents in the file, or finally, whether there was a misuse of authority. Additionally, the Tribunal shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4579, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).”
(See also Judgment 4764, consideration 8.)
Among the many pleas entered by the complainant in support of her complaint, there are four which, since they relate to procedural errors or errors of law, fall within the limited scope of the Tribunal’s power of review defined above and are decisive for the outcome of this dispute. These pleas pertain to the breach of the complainant’s due process rights, to the lack of sufficient motivation of the impugned decision, to an error of law in the assessment of the alleged serious misconduct and gross negligence findings, and to a lack of proportionality of the sanction imposed.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4579, 4745, 4764
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; discretion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4831
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent precedent, contained, for example, in consideration 8 of Judgment 3361, states that the Tribunal cannot substitute its own views for the medical opinions on which an administrative decision, such as the present one, is based. The Tribunal is, however, fully competent to assess whether the procedure that has been followed was correctly carried out, especially as regards respect for the adversarial principle or the right to be heard, and to examine whether the reports used as the basis for that administrative decision contain any substantive error or inconsistency, overlook essential facts or draw erroneous conclusions from the evidence (see also Judgments 3994, consideration 5, 3689, consideration 3, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2361, 3361, 3689, 3994
Keywords:
discretion; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant asks that he be awarded the “average rating of ‘fulfils the requirements’” [...].
It is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative bodies responsible for staff appraisals within an international organisation, to determine the rating to be given to an employee in a performance evaluation report (see, for example, Judgments 4564, consideration 2, and 4258, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4258, 4564
Keywords:
performance report; rating; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4794
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Considerations 10 & 12
Extract:
[T]he fact that the Appraisals Committee’s mandate is confined to determining whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not in itself render the procedure flawed, as the Tribunal also noted in the aforementioned Judgments 4637, consideration 13, and 4257, consideration 13. In addition, the Appraisals Committee’s restricted mandate in this regard does not limit the extent of the Tribunal’s judicial role in this area. It must be recalled that the Tribunal can exercise only a limited power of review in the matter of staff appraisals. In Judgment 4564, consideration 3, the Tribunal reiterated the following in this regard:
“[A]ssessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority. Regarding the rating of EPO employees, those criteria are the more stringent because the Office has a procedure for conciliation on staff reports and the Service Regulations entitle officials to appeal to a [...] body [...]”
Since the Tribunal does not have the ability to substitute its own assessment for that made by the persons or bodies responsible for assessing an employee’s merits, the fact that the Appraisals Committee’s power of review is itself confined to assessing whether an appraisal report is arbitrary or discriminatory does not affect the Tribunal’s power of review, which continues to be exercised on the same terms as previously.
[...]
[T]he exercise that the complainant is asking the Tribunal to undertake with regard to the assessment of his productivity and his overall evaluation amounts in reality to a re-evaluation of his performance for 2016. However, that is a misconstruction of the Tribunal’s role, given the limited power of review the Tribunal may exercise in this matter according to its settled case law (see, for example, the aforementioned Judgment 4564, consideration 3, which was cited in the aforementioned Judgment 4637, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4564, 4637
Keywords:
discretion; rating; role of the tribunal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
