Organisation's duties (202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Organisation's duties
Total judgments found: 652
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 | next >
Judgment 2862
108th Session, 2010
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
The critical issue raised by this complaint is whether the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of income tax levied in Canada on the salary and allowances received by her from the Organization.
"It is not in dispute that the complainant was informed before she accepted the offer of appointment that she was not entitled to reimbursement of income tax paid in Canada. She claims that the information given to her at that time was false and that at all relevant times the Staff Regulations and Rules provided for reimbursement [...]. In support of her claim she provides a version of Annex A to the Staff Regulations and Rules [...]. IOM produces another version [of the said Annex]."
"IOM seeks an order for costs against the complainant. Given that initial correspondence with the complainant suggested that income tax would be reimbursed, and given also the confusion relating to the precise terms of Annex A, including that the complainant was provided with a hard copy of the annex in its unamended form, this is not an appropriate case in which to award costs against the complainant."
Keywords:
costs; organisation's duties; payment; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 91 and 93
Extract:
"[T]he complainant seeks damages for the publication in the [Organization] monthly information bulletin that she had been separated from service, in the English version, and dismissed from service ('démise de ses fonctions') in the French version. The publication of this information was contrary to the Secretary-General's instructions but, even if published negligently, [the Organization] is liable for the damage occasioned to the complainant's reputation and dignity. In this regard, it was said in Judgment 2720 that 'international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members' (see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371 and 2475). It was also pointed out in Judgment 2720 that that obligation extends to former staff members."
"There will be an award of material and moral damages in relation to the publication [...]. However, account will be taken of the facts that the publication resulted from negligence, not malice, that it was speedily withdrawn and that the Secretary-General apologised to the complainant. In Judgment 2720 mentioned above the Tribunal held that, in the case of a continuing duty of an organisation to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the reputation or dignity of its staff members, the Tribunal may order performance of that duty, including by ordering the publication of material to restore a person's reputation. The complainant seeks an order of that kind in the present case. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that her honour and reputation will be sufficiently vindicated by this judgment and by an award of damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720
Keywords:
compensation; damages; judgment of the tribunal; material injury; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Consideration 83
Extract:
"A decision not to renew a contract is a discretionary decision that can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Those grounds include that the decision is tainted by procedural irregularities, is based on incorrect facts or essential facts have not been taken into consideration or clearly false conclusions have been drawn from the facts. The complainant argues that the decision of 25 October 2006 should be set aside on the ground that it is a disguised disciplinary measure. It is clear from the terms of the letter of 25 October 2006 [...] that that decision was taken on the basis of what was considered to be misconduct. So much is confirmed by the complainant's subsequent summary dismissal based on the warning of 25 October 2006 [...]. However, in Judgment 1405, the Tribunal stated that '[s]ince disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment the complainant may not properly allege hidden disciplinary action'. Even so, where nonrenewal is based on misconduct, that misconduct must be proved. And if the decision has not been preceded by disciplinary proceedings, the obligation of good faith requires that an organisation at least give the staff member concerned the opportunity to answer the matters levelled against him or her. Indeed, unless that opportunity is given, the organisation will be at risk of proceeding on incorrect facts or without regard to essential facts or of drawing false conclusions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1405
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; good faith; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; remand;
Considerations 97-99
Extract:
The complainant argues that she was discharged from the continuing obligation of confidentiality when her employment was unlawfully terminated.
"There is no doubt that an international civil servant is under an obligation of discretion (see Judgments 1608 and 1732)."
"In the present case, the complainant had unsuccessfully availed herself of internal appeal procedures with respect to the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of IAS, her attempt to raise her claim of harassment had been rejected as 'abusive and ill driven' without investigation and her request for review of the decision not to renew her contract led to her summary dismissal. In these circumstances, it is to be doubted that there was a continuing obligation of complete discretion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1608, 1732
Keywords:
duty of discretion; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's reputation; respect for dignity; staff member's duties;
Consideration 27
Extract:
"[I]t must be taken to be normal practice in any international organisation to involve the Chief of a Section or Department in plans for its reorganisation. Not to do so would, ordinarily, constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; reorganisation; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"In its submissions the Organization details the comprehensive training strategy that was established to enable the complainant to strengthen his skills. [T]hat strategy included participation in a number of courses and a half-time secondment to the IRIS project to allow the complainant exposure to the new system."
"The Tribunal concludes that, in the circumstances, the Organization did its utmost to respect the complainant's dignity and good name and not to cause him any harm. Despite the fact that the complainant did not possess the requisite skills, the grade P.3 position was designated at grade P.4 and his personal grade was not altered."
Keywords:
decision; grade; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; qualifications; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; training; transfer;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It is [...] clear that a transfer of a non-disciplinary nature «is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications» (see Judgment 2229, under 3(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that the complainant has shown no proof of bias against her on the part of the Organization. In fact it appears that the Organization was diligent in the exercise of its duty of care towards the complainant, as seen in the repeated attempts at mediation and the care in offering her multiple opportunities to contribute to the post classification process through updated job descriptions and other relevant submissions."
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; organisation's duties; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2850
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's contract, issued on 18 July 2007 and effective as of 30 November, preceded his actual separation from service by more than four months. The Tribunal is of the view that in the present case that period of time was long enough for it to be deemed to comply with [the Organization's obligation to give the complainant reasonable notice]."
Keywords:
contract; date; effect; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 2849
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that where misconduct is denied, the onus is on the Administration to prove the misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, staff members are to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2786, under 9)."
"Although the complainant argues otherwise, the evidence gathered [...] clearly establishes misconduct beyond reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2848
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"Having regard to the complainant's actions and his persistent, disingenuous attempts to reformulate the contents of communications, the Tribunal finds that the complainant's assertion that he did not reject the offer of the appointment as Chief of Cabinet and Director of ODG is not credible, and that he indeed rejected that offer on 1 August 2002. In the circumstances, the Organization was under no obligation to keep the offer open for any further period. Since it was not kept open, its purported acceptance did not give rise to a binding contract."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; binding character; contract; law of contract; limits; notice; offer; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 2843
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4 and 6
Extract:
As a result of slipping on liquid in the Office's underground car park, the complainant suffered a fracture of the leg.
"The complainant contends [...] that the Office breached the duty of care owed to its employees by failing to provide a safe work environment. He maintains that the Office was negligent in its cleaning and maintenance of the car park and claims that it should have been mopped instead of just swept on a weekly basis and that the security staff were not specifically trained to check for and report oil or water stains."
"Given the nature of the premises, namely a car park, it cannot be concluded that it was reasonable for the Office to take measures in addition to those that were in place at the time of the accident. In particular, it cannot be concluded that it should have arranged for the mopping rather than the sweeping of the floors. Moreover, it has not been established that, even if additional measures had been taken, they would have eliminated the risk of injury. Accordingly, negligence has not been established and the complaint must be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 435, 2533, 2804
Keywords:
general principle; invalidity; liability; material damages; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Contrary to the Internal Appeals Committee’s view, it is well settled that in order to extend an organisation’s liability beyond its liability under its no-fault regime, a claimant must prove negligence or the intentional breach of a duty (see, for example, Judgments 435, under 5, and 2533, under 6).
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2804, under 25:
“Negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury which was foreseeable.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 435, 2533, 2804
Keywords:
negligence; organisation's duties; service-incurred;
Judgment 2841
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
"However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects WHO's reliance on its letter [...] as being a communication of a decision that the complainant would not need to have an exit medical examination. There is no basis upon which it could be inferred from the statement «the administrative formalities have been completed» that the mandatory exit medical examination provided for in the Staff Rules was being unilaterally waived. Given that an exit medical examination is mandatory and has potentially significant legal consequences for both parties, it would be expected that a deviation from the norm would be specifically communicated."
Keywords:
duty to inform; medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"While a decision to reassign a staff member may be based on multiple factors, it is evident [...] that «capacity strengthening» was not the real reason for the reassignment. [M]isinforming the complainant of the reason for the reassignment reflects a disregard for her dignity."
Keywords:
assignment; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t cannot be said that the Organization engaged in any meaningful consultation with the complainant regarding her reassignment. Providing her with Terms of Reference for a post that she did not know was intended for her, arranging for a meeting with her proposed new Director without being informed of her planned transfer, and a meeting with the Regional Director when the decision had already been taken does not constitute proper consultation."
Keywords:
assignment; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; terms of appointment;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Upon being informed of the complainant's forthcoming marriage to the Director of her division, it was entirely proper for the Organization to consider whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules or its policy were engaged. It was equally proper to obtain advice on these matters. However, there was no need to canvas the views of some 40 staff members. [...] While properly structured consultations with staff through their association on matters of policy and regulations is appropriate, the canvassing of individual staff members in these circumstances was highly inappropriate and their individual views were irrelevant."
Keywords:
consultation; marital status; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is clear that in accordance with Staff Regulation 1.1 staff members are subject to the authority of the Director-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Organization. Further, under Staff Rule 565.2 a staff member may be reassigned at any time in the interest of the Organization. However, in the exercise of the discretion to reassign a staff member, the Organization must take into account the interests and dignity of the staff member, including the provision of work of the same level as that which was performed in the former post and matching the staff member's qualifications, and care must be taken not to cause undue injury to the staff member (see Judgments 2067, under 17, 2191, under 3, and 2229, under 3). Moreover, the staff member is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the reassignment. In addition to ensuring transparency in decision making, providing the reasons for the reassignment permits a staff member to assess the courses of action that may be taken, including the lodging of an appeal, and it also permits a review of the lawfulness of the decision on appeal (see Judgment 1757, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757, 2067, 2191, 2229
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In her statement of appeal [...] the complainant specifically referred to and detailed the conduct that she alleged constituted a breach of the Organization's policy on harassment.
Upon receipt of these allegations of harassment, the Headquarters Board of Appeal was obliged to refer that aspect of the appeal to the Grievance Panel. The fact that the complainant did not take issue with the Board's failure to make the referral until sometime later, did not absolve the latter of its obligation to make the referral and to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The failure to make the mandatory referral constitutes an error of law for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. As the Director-General's decision was based on a fundamentally flawed process involving an error of law, it must be set aside."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that the complainant should have pursued her harassment allegations by filing a formal complaint with the Grievance Panel. The Organization established the Grievance Panel to examine and make recommendations regarding formal complaints of harassment. It is clear from a reading of Information Note 36/2004 and Cluster Note 2001/13 that the Organization recognised that a harassment complaint could arise within the context of an appeal against an administrative decision or as a stand-alone complaint, and established separate mechanisms to have such complaints examined by the
Grievance Panel."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2837
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant was not granted the personal promotion she was eligible for and the Organization did not respect its obligation to publish the list of officials who were granted such a promotion.
"Contrary to the Organization, which maintains that its failure to publish the list could not have caused any injury to the complainant and in no way influenced the decision to refuse her such a promotion, the Tribunal considers that non publication of the list in question deprived the complainant of information that she might have found useful in filing a request for review [...].
The impugned decision must therefore be set aside [...], and the case must be referred back to the Organization so that it may publish the list of officials who were granted a personal promotion [...]. The complainant may, if she so wishes, file a request for review within a fixed period from the date of publication of the list in question."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; organisation's duties; personal promotion; publication; refusal; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[T]he procedures used to assess the performance of international civil servants must be both transparent and adversarial."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; official; organisation's duties; work appraisal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]lthough the Tribunal's case law requires that an official on probation be warned in a timely manner that his/her appointment might not be confirmed, it does not require that a decision not to renew a contract should rest on exactly the same criticisms as those of which the person concerned had previously been notified (see Judgments 1546 and 2162)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2162
Keywords:
case law; difference; duty to inform; grounds; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; warning;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
"The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."
Keywords:
condition; contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; recommendation; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"While a candidate is entitled to know the reasons for the rejection of his own candidacy, this does not extend to access to the Selection Board's consideration of the merits of other candidates."
Keywords:
candidate; duty of discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; organisation's duties; selection board;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In March 2006 the complainant, who had been assigned to Zimbabwe since 1996, applied for a transfer, in the same grade, to ILO headquarters in Geneva to occupy the advertised post of Senior Procurement Officer. His candidature was rejected because he failed to meet three of the core requirements listed in the vacancy notice. Circular No. 658, series 6, states that the Office should ensure, in particular, that 'priority for mobility is given to staff members who have completed their tours of duty', i.e. their assignment in a particular duty station.
"It is not disputed that the complainant can avail himself of the mobility rules to return, as and when appropriate, to the Organization's headquarters. But that does not, of course, mean that he has a right to return to headquarters to take up a particular post without it being determined beforehand that the post to which he aspires corresponds to his skills."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 658, series 6
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competition; condition; criteria; duty station; field; grade; grounds; headquarters; organisation's duties; period; post; priority; qualifications; reassignment; refusal; request for transfer; right; vacancy notice; written rule;
Judgment 2830
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated following a reorganisation.
"The Tribunal finds that the Organization has not shown that it actually did its utmost to find a post matching the complainant's qualifications. Furthermore, before simply terminating his appointment, the Organization ought to have ascertained whether he was prepared to accept a post at a lower grade to that which he had previously held (see Judgment 1782, under 11). It was not up to the complainant to prove that he was able to remain in the Organization's service in some capacity; it was up to the Organization to prove the contrary."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1782
Keywords:
burden of proof; condition; grade; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; post; qualifications; reassignment; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2827
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The EPO contends that the complaints are irreceivable ratione materiae on the basis that the implied decision refusing to provide the complainants with the requested information is not a "decision relating to a specific individual" for the purposes of Article 106 of the Service Regulations. It was pointed out in Judgment 1542 that: "a complaint is receivable only if it is about an individual official's status as an employee of the organisation, not about the collective interests of trade unionists." It is well settled that a complaint may concern breach of the Service Regulations (see Judgment 1147) or other guarantees that the EPO is bound to provide to its staff (see Judgment 2649). Those guarantees extend to freedom of association and collective bargaining insofar as they are implicit in the Service Regulations. With respect to collective bargaining, it is sufficient to note that Article 34(1) mandates that the Staff Committee "shall represent the interests of the staff and maintain suitable contacts between the competent administrative authorities and the staff" and that Article 36(1) enables it to "mak[e] [...] suggestions relating to [...] the collective interests of the whole or part of the staff". However, the rights that are comprehended within the notions of "freedom of association" and "collective bargaining" that may also be the subject of an internal appeal and, subsequently, of a complaint to the Tribunal are individual rights inhering in individual staff members."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 34, 36 and 106 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1542, 2649
Keywords:
collective bargaining; collective rights; complaint; decision; freedom of association; individual decision; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2806
106th Session, 2009
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 2575, the Tribunal annulled a decision to transfer the complainant from Vienna to Berlin. No action was taken to return him to Vienna. Instead, on 13 February 2007, the IOM informed him that he was to be transferred to Berlin with immediate effect. In Judgment 2691, the Tribunal declared that the decision of 13 February 2007 was "null and void ab initio".
"Like all judicial bodies, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction and power to take action to ensure that its judgments are implemented. That power may be exercised in any proceedings where a question is raised with respect to the implementation of a judgment. Accordingly, an order will be made for a penalty to be paid in the event that [the complainant] is not posted to Vienna within 30 days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2575, 2691
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 2803
106th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Although the Director-General will ordinarily be treated as the best judge of what the Organization's interests are and the Tribunal will not ordinarily interfere in his assessment of them, nevertheless it will do so in this case. It is quite inadequate to plead that the decision to transfer the complainant was "in the interests of the Organization". The basis for reaching that conclusion must be made clear so that the Tribunal may exercise its power of review and determine whether there exists any of the grounds for setting aside a discretionary decision of that kind."
"In the present case, [...] the Tribunal considers that the Organization's clear explanation of the reasons for the complainant's transfer enabled it to conduct a review [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 | next >
|
