|
|
 |
|
|
Expert inquiry (161, 162,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Expert inquiry
Total judgments found: 29
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 4580, consideration 19, the Tribunal recalled that, when decisions have been taken on the basis of expert evidence, it is not the Tribunal’s role to substitute its assessment for that of an expert, unless that assessment is affected by a blatant error (see also Judgments 4464, consideration 7, 4277, consideration 20, and 4278, consideration 16). However, far from establishing the existence of a blatant error, the arguments set up by the complainant against the Organisation’s medical evidence amount instead to a request for the Tribunal to substitute its assessment for that of the Organisation in relation to a medical matter.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4277, 4278, 4464, 4580
Keywords:
expert inquiry; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4635
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal in which he requested that an expert in occupational diseases be consulted.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the decision contested by the complainant was not an act adversely affecting him and therefore could not be challenged. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable.
[T]he refusal to grant the complainant’s request for an expert to be consulted had neither the aim nor the effect of ending the procedure he had initiated with a view to obtaining recognition that his invalidity was caused by an occupational disease. The refusal only meant that the request in question would be submitted to the Medical Committee for consideration, instead of being regarded as having to be granted automatically, as the complainant contended. Apart from the fact that it in no way prejudiced the eventual outcome of the request, this decision was merely a step in the process of reaching a final decision on the question of whether the invalidity was to be recognised as service incurred.
However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, when a decision is thus taken in the procedure leading to a final administrative decision, it must be regarded merely as a preparatory step and is not therefore challengeable in itself, although it may be challenged in the context of an appeal directed against that final decision (see, for example, Judgments 3433, consideration 9, and 2366, consideration 16, or, specifically in respect of decisions taken, as in this case, in proceedings of a medical nature, Judgments 3893, consideration 8, or 3712, consideration 3).
Lastly, while it must be noted that from the start of the dispute the EPO has never argued that the complainant’s claims are irreceivable, that does not prevent such a finding in the present judgment. It is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, in particular, Judgments 3648, consideration 5, 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, or 2097, consideration 24) and, while plainly it will not do so unless the submissions make such irreceivability clear, that is the situation here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2366, 2567, 3139, 3433, 3648, 3712, 3893
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; medical board; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal reiterates, in respect of the supposed “flimsiness” of the actuarial studies at issue, that it is not its role to substitute its assessment for that of an expert such as an actuary unless that assessment is affected by a blatant error (see [...] Judgments 4278 and 4277, considerations 16 and 20 respectively, and the case law cited therein). The complainants’ line of argument regarding these studies, which consists in drawing attention to the hypothetical nature of particular data used therein – which the very nature of such studies makes inevitable – does not establish the existence of such a blatant error.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4277, 4278
Keywords:
actuary; discretion; expert inquiry; judicial review;
Judgment 4498
134th Session, 2022
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[I]t can be inferred from the Tribunal’s case law (see Judgment 3538, considerations 11 to 15) that, where the impugned decision is based on the opinion of an expert – as it is, in the present case, the Actuary – the complainants cannot merely submit their divergent analysis in order to refute that opinion. They should rather provide “evidence from authorities of equivalent weight”. Only such evidence might potentially be apt to demonstrate the possible flaws in the expert opinion underpinning the impugned decision. In the present case, the complainant’s arguments against the methodology adopted by the Actuary are not supported by any expert opinion of equivalent weight.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
actuarial valuation; expert inquiry; methodology; pension;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
In considerations 14 and 15 of Judgment 3538, the Tribunal stated that a decision to increase the pension contribution rate may be challenged if a complainant provides evidence from an expert in the field of actuarial studies to demonstrate flaws in the methodology used in the actuarial study and that, in any event, even if a complainant provides such expert evidence it would not necessarily follow that the decision of the Administrative Council or the implementation decision to deduct the higher pension contribution rate from a complainant’s payslip would be unlawful. This, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3538, consideration 15, is because “[t]he power clearly vested in the Administrative Council to alter the pension scheme can be exercised lawfully if it represents a bona fide attempt to secure the pension scheme into the future [...] based on what appears to be reasoned actuarial advice”.
Acknowledging the requirement that they had to provide evidence from an expert to demonstrate flaws in the methodology used in the actuarial study, the complainants state that they delivered “a full mathematical proof” in the internal appeal procedures, which is still valid, casting doubt upon the Actuarial Advisory Group’s recommendations. However, they state that they did not file their calculations in the Tribunal proceedings because they would be ignored. Critically, they have not provided evidence from an expert to demonstrate flaws in the methodology used in the underlying actuarial study. Their arguments in the present proceedings that the actuaries fully relied upon the materials provided by one party to the proceedings (the EPO) and that the Actuarial Advisory Group had to accept all the boundary conditions imposed by the EPO, such as a politically pre-determined interest rate and politically pre-determined size of the Reserve Fund for Pensions and Social Security, which results in staff members paying pension contribution rates that are too high, do not obviate their need to provide expert evidence of the nature the Tribunal outlined in Judgment 3538.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
actuarial valuation; expert inquiry; pension;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants each seek an order under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Rules that an “[e]xpert [e]nquiry [by] an external, independent actuary not linked to the EPO or external companies running parts of the EPO’s Pension Scheme concerning the raise of pension contributions [be conducted]” if their claims are not granted in the written procedure. Their requests are rejected. The Tribunal recalls its statement in consideration 4 of Judgment 3538 when rejecting a similar request:
“Plainly enough there is a power vested in the Tribunal to order measures of investigation that might include an expert enquiry. However this power fundamentally serves to assist the Tribunal in resolving issues raised by the parties and supported by the evidence adduced by the parties. For example, it is a power that might be used if expert evidence was adduced by both the complainant and the defendant organisation but there was some unresolved difference of opinion between the experts. In such a case either the Tribunal of its own motion might order an expert enquiry or might do so on the application of a party. However, Article 11 does not create a mechanism intended to enable one party to make good a case which is otherwise deficient. This appears, in substance, to be the basis of the complainants’ request.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
expert inquiry;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 20
Extract:
As a rule, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of an expert such as an actuary (see Judgments 3360, under 4 and 5, 3538, under 11 to 15, and 4134, under 26). However, since the complainant alleges blatant errors, the Tribunal will examine her objections.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3360, 3538, 4134
Keywords:
actuary; expert inquiry; judicial review; manifest error;
Judgment 4117
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the finding that his invalidity was not caused by an occupational disease.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It does not matter, for present purposes, whether the [Medical] Committee is bound to accept the views of the expert. But what, as an absolute minimum, the Committee must do is give earnest and substantial consideration to the views of the expert or experts it has consulted, and it can reject their views only for cogent and compelling reasons.
Keywords:
expert inquiry; medical board;
Judgment 3246
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant refused to undergo a new medical examination that the Tribunal had ordered. The Tribunal considered that it could not rule on the complaint which is thus dismissed.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant wilfully refused to undergo the specialised medical examination ordered in Judgment 3145, it is not in a position to rule on her complaint, which must therefore be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3145
Keywords:
expert inquiry; medical examination; refusal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; expert inquiry; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2973
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"By failing to deal with the informal complaints in a manner consistent with its own policy, by failing to conduct an investigation in a timely manner when a formal complaint was filed and then by terminating the investigation, WHO breached its duty of care toward the complainant and caused her serious injury."
Keywords:
breach; claim; duty of care; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; written rule;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
"[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2083
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant suffered from retinal detachments and a detachment of the vitreous. The organization recognised her eye condition as service incurred. In "September 1998 [...] the [organization] decide[d] to stop reimbursing the bills [she submitted] on [the] grounds [...] that curing her retinal detachments was no longer the object of the treatment. However, it did not show that the service-incurred injuries were not a "direct and principal" cause of the treatment [... ] The Tribunal takes the view that although, as the organization says, the decision to stop reimbursing the bills was at the discretion of the Director-General, it could not be taken without an independent expert medical opinion obtained through a process which provides all the safeguards of transparency and impartiality." The case is therefore sent back to the organization.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; discretion; due process; executive head; expert inquiry; grounds; illness; independence; lack of evidence; medical expenses; medical opinion; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; professional accident; refund; refusal; safeguard; service-incurred;
Judgment 1870
87th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Mr. B., intervening in a previous case, had resorted to an expert in graphology in order to prove that the complainant, who contested his appointment to a post, had falsified documents. He seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred in obtaining this expert opinion. "The steps he took were not necessary since, when expert opinion is required, it is for the Tribunal to order it on its own motion or on the application of another party (Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal). Mr. B. should therefore have confined himself to submitting the question to the Tribunal, which would have judged the pertinence of the matter and the validity of the proof supplied. The costs which he incurred in obtaining an extra-judicial expert opinion, which cannot replace a judicial expert opinion, were not therefore necessary." So they are not reimbursable by the organisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; cost of expert inquiry; expert inquiry; further submissions; intervention; submissions;
Judgment 1771
85th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(c)
Extract:
"The complainant applies for an expert enquiry to determine whether she is fit for the duties of the post. Firm precedent has it that an executive head must be allowed discretion to determine what services the Organisation needs and whether someone is able to provide them, and that the Tribunal may exercise only a limited power of review over decisions on such matters. To allow the complainant's application for expert inquiry would be to assume that the Tribunal might replace the Director General's assessment of her with its own and would be alien to the notion of limited review [...]."
Keywords:
case law; competition; discretion; executive head; expert inquiry; judicial review; qualifications; refusal;
Judgment 1516
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The complainant wants the Tribunal to 'declare that UNESCO has failed to act and itself make the final determination [regarding the degree of her invalidity] that the organization has for years been refusing' her. Having put up with years of dilatoriness and prevarication,she is understandably anxious to have her entitlements speedily determined. Being unable, however, to rule on the medical aspects of her case, the Tribunal has no choice but to send the case back to the organization for completion of the process of review in keeping with the rules."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; iloat statute; invalidity; judicial review; medical board; medical examination; medical opinion; rate;
Judgment 1373
77th Session, 1994
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"In this judgment, which is an interlocutory order, the Tribunal will follow the precedent it set in Judgment 875 [...]. It orders two expert inquiries. It will appoint both a scientific expert and a medical expert, and their terms of reference will be as set out in the operative points of the decision below."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 875
Keywords:
case law; expert inquiry; further submissions; interlocutory order;
Judgment 1248
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "applies to the Tribunal for appointment of an expert to inquire into the scientific issues. His application is disallowed because the evidence he submits casts no doubt on the soundness of the medical opinion the organisation is relying on. For the same reason the Tribunal rejects his application for hearings."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; appraisal of evidence; expert inquiry; further submissions; medical opinion; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 1180
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the Agency ought to have consulted an independent doctor. But there was no requirement in the Rules that it refer the complainant's case to outside doctors; indeed the Director General was right to rely on Eurocontrol's own medical officer, who was authorised to assess the position both by his own lights and in view of the opinion expressed by the complainant's own doctor. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to suggest that the Agency's medical officer made an improper assessment either of the state of the complainant's health or of the nature of the treatment he received [...] There is therefore no reason for the Tribunal to seek further expert advice".
Keywords:
expert inquiry; illness; medical consultant; medical opinion;
Judgment 1104
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was asked to report to an expert medical examination to examine his fitness for shift work. He objects to questions the organization put to the expert. Though the complaint is receivable, the Tribunal dismisses it on the merits since the material questions were relevant to the dispute and did not deprive the complainant of any safeguard. Once the medical expert has reported and the administrative decision been taken, the complainant may submit a further complaint bearing on the dispute as a whole.
Keywords:
expert inquiry; incapacity; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; safeguard;
Judgment 947
65th Session, 1988
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
"The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical inquiry, which establish finally the medical aspects of the case. In view of the findings the Tribunal, before delivering a final judgment, requires from the complainant his replies to the following questions: (1) what invalidity pension is he claiming in compensation for total work disability caused as to 50 per cent by the accident ? (2) what is the total amount he is claiming in compensation for loss of function of the foot and of this amount what portion is attributable to loss of enjoyment of life ?"
Keywords:
disability benefit; expert inquiry; further submissions; incapacity; interlocutory order; invalidity; loss of enjoyment of life; medical examination;
Judgment 875
63rd Session, 1987
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The information available does not enable the Tribunal to assess whether the accident of 3 April 1982 resulted in all the permanent injuries now suffered by the complainant or only in the permanent injury to his left foot. In these circumstances an examination should be carried out by a medical expert whose terms of reference are set out below."
Keywords:
expert inquiry; further submissions; incapacity; interlocutory order; invalidity; medical examination; professional accident; rate; service-incurred;
Judgment 620
53rd Session, 1984
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal may not substitute its own views for those of the experts. It will not entertain the complainant's plea that their findings were superficial, illogical or at variance with up-to-date medical opinion. The material issue is whether correct procedure was observed in consulting them.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; judicial review; medical examination; medical opinion;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
