Promotion (269, 270, 271, 945, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 666,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Promotion
Total judgments found: 166
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 1804
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The promotion of Mr C., presented as the fulfilment of a promise made to him on recruitment, gave rise to a decision adopted on 7 December 1994. "Only that decision was notified to the staff. So the complainants, who were unaware of the promise, were in good faith in challenging the promotion on the grounds that it was in breach of the Rule it actually cited. So they were right in saying that Mr C. had been promoted to A4 even though he did not fully qualify under the [relevant] rules [...]. Because of the unusual circumstances in which Mr C. was promoted the complainants were also right to challenge the decision: the [Organization] had on the face of it failed to observe the general principle of equal treatment because in promoting Mr C. it did not abide by the requirements of the Service Regulations or by the criteria for promotion to which the complainants were themselves subject. The conclusion is that the complainants did suffer moral injury and each of them is entitled under that head to [compensation]".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; condition; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1733
84th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The authorities of the complainant's home country, who were asked to give an opinion about giving him a promotion, declined their support for him but gave no reasons. If the country "had given a reason the Director General would have had to consider whether it was sound or not and whether refusing him the appointment was in the Agency's best interests. since it offered none, he had no basis on which to exercise his discretion. The complainant was fully qualified for promotion; his abilities were well known to the Agency and appreciated. The paramount consideration mentioned in Article VII.d [of the IAEA Staff Regulations] was heeded, namely seeking staff of the highest standards of efficiency, technical competence and integrity. The reason stated by the Agency for refusing him the appointment which he would otherwise have been granted is therefore untenable and acting from that reason amounted to a mistake in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VII.D OF THE IAEA STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
discretion; independence; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; promotion; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1667
83rd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant relies on an alleged promise of promotion which took the form of an announcement in the EPO gazette. "The issue is one of good faith. There is indeed no question of imputing to the EPO any promise to grant to a seconded employee who proved his mettle as liaison officer an automatic promotion in grade or appointment to some more covetable post. Such promise would have been untoward and presumably incompatible with any properly strict observance of the Service Regulations."
Keywords:
condition; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1600
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"If a decision to promote is taken against the Board's advice and on the basis of considerations other than ability and the record of performance, as prescribed in Article 49(7) of the Service Regulations, then fairness and impartiality can no longer be ensured. The reasons given for the impugned decisions are inappropriate for the promotion procedure established by Article 49 and amount to denial of the equal treatment the complainants were entitled to."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49(7) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; equal treatment; performance report; personal file; promotion; promotion board; qualifications; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1576
82nd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Since the award of end-of-service promotion falls within the Director-General's discretion, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review: it will intervene only if there has been breach of some rule of form or procedure or a mistake of law or fact or failure to take some essential fact into account."
Keywords:
discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; procedural flaw; promotion; separation from service;
Judgment 1565
82nd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that since it was unlawful to have no staff representative on the Selection Committee its recommendation too was unlawful. [...] But since the provisions on the membership of the Committee are not binding, and if no staff representative chooses to attend, that cannot have the effect of invalidating its recommendations."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; staff representative;
Judgment 1556
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Like appointment and promotion, transfer is at the discretion of the executive head of the international organisation and subject to only limited review. The Tribunal may interfere only if the decision was taken ultra vires or shows formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. And the Tribunal will be especially wary in reviewing a transfer since it may not replace the employer's rating of the official with its own."
Keywords:
appointment; decision; discretion; executive head; judicial review; limits; promotion; transfer;
Judgment 1527
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is challenging the lawfulness of the appointment of another official, who was promoted without a competition to a post for which the complainant considered himself qualified. The Tribunal holds that the post should "have been properly advertised and a selection made by competition." Even though the other official "had been performing the duties for about a year on her own G.7 post of administrative assistant, she could have been appointed to the vacant post only after the prescribed procedure had been followed. the itu was not free to bypass the procedure by promoting her to P.3."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; flaw; procedural flaw; promotion; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1439
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The grant of promotion with effect from [a given date] is an administrative decision which the complainant was entitled to challenge".
Keywords:
cause of action; date; decision; effective date; promotion;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization refused to promote the complainant with effect from the date at which he met the material conditions on the grounds that he had been subject to disciplinary action. The Tribunal quashed the disciplinary action in an earlier judgment and the complainant finally got his promotion, albeit with some delay. The Tribunal rejects his claim to moral damages. "The delay in granting him promotion caused him no moral injury because the organisation acted in good faith in originally deciding not to promote him."
Keywords:
date; delay; disciplinary measure; effective date; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1422
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has ruled in Judgment 988 "that Regulation 4.9 allows the Secretary-General to promote someone even against the Appointment and Promotion Board's advice and is intended as a safeguard to ensure compliance with the rules on appointment and promotion. The intent is not to enable the Secretary-General to prefer a weaker candidate on compassionate or indeed any other grounds."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 4.9
ILOAT Judgment(s): 988
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; case law; discretion; due process; enforcement; executive head; interpretation; promotion; promotion board; safeguard; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1416
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant charged the organization with breach of equal treatment when it assigned her to a new career path. The answer the Director-General gave her was ambiguous. "The Tribunal cannot therefore review the Director-General's reason for declining to put her on the same path as the other official, nor tell whether cern abided by the rules on fairness. Not having enough evidence to make a ruling, it will quash the impugned decision, though it will not order cern to put her on path iv as she asks."
Keywords:
assignment; career; equal treatment; equity; grounds; judicial review; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1413
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[The complainant's] claim to a higher grade is irreceivable. Even if her career did suffer delay she may not seek redress on that account in the context of the choice of career path; nor may she impugn any decision that she failed to challenge in time or object to her grading as administrative assistant."
Keywords:
assignment; career; complaint; delay; post classification; promotion; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1412
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant may not, "in the context of a challenge to the choice of career path, object to earlier delays which he believes held up his advancement. Nor has he any grounds for saying that putting him on path V may 'discourage' him: CERN's evident purpose in making such ambitious reforms is to act in the general interest and try to ensure equal treatment for all its staff."
Keywords:
assignment; career; delay; equal treatment; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
Article 15 of Annex 1 to the Eurocontrol Convention says that "the Agency shall be empowered to recruit personnel directly only if the contracting parties are unable to make qualified personnel available to it". The Tribunal holds that the provision "limits the organisation's freedom to recruit by giving priority to candidates prescribed by the contracting parties over 'outside' candidates, but it puts no restrictions on the organisation's freedom to assess the suitability of applicants, wherever they may come from, nor its right to give serving staff a reasonable opportunity of advancement provided that they are as well qualified as other candidates."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 15 OF ANNEX 1 TO THE EUROCONTROL CONVENTION
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; career; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; equal treatment; internal candidate; international instrument; interpretation; legitimate expectation; member state; official; priority; promotion; qualifications;
Judgment 1388
78th Session, 1995
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent promotion is at the discretion of the organisation, which must be free to grant or withhold it in accordance with objective working requirements. It follows that any grant of promotion at the time of retirement is inherently contrary to the organisation's interests because by then there can no longer be any question of taking on the higher level of responsibility that promotion entails."
Keywords:
case law; date; discretion; effective date; organisation's interest; promotion; retirement; right; separation from service;
Judgment 1370
77th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant pleads that he had been promoted from grade G.7 to P.2 "even though he was drawing the post allowance. It is immaterial whether or not the conditions in which he was granted the allowance met the requirements of Regulation 3.8: suffice it to observe that he acquiesced and amply reaped the benefit for most of the period during which he received the allowance. So the Tribunal cannot allow his plea that he was promoted."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 3.8
Keywords:
acceptance; amendment to the rules; condition; general service category; grade; professional category; promotion; special post allowance; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1359
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
One consistent requirement the regulations lay down for filling posts "is the appointment of a selection board that may consider all applicants [...] who qualify under one and the same notice of vacancy. As was said in Judgment 1223, that formal requirement affords every applicant a basic safeguard of open and objective decision-making, and it holds good whether the applicant wants promotion, transfer or a change of category."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; safeguard; selection board; staff regulations and rules; transfer; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Any promotion wholly or even mainly based on considerations of sex would unquestionably be unlawful."
Keywords:
candidate; discretion; flaw; judicial review; promotion; sex discrimination;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Qualifications being comparable, it was lawful for the Union to apply the test of seniority" when picking a candidate for promotion.
Keywords:
candidate; competence; criteria; discretion; judicial review; promotion; seniority;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; decision; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; grounds; judicial review; no provision; official; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; request by a party; subsidiary; written rule;
Judgment 1354
77th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant objects to the career path on which CERN assigned him when it brought in a new system of advancement. He says CERN relied on his grade - 8 -, whereas it did not give a true indication of the quality of his work. "The plea is irreceivable since it amounts to challenging his promotion to grade 8, a decision he has never demurred at in an internal appeal and which has therefore become final."
Keywords:
assignment; career; decision; grade; internal appeal; promotion; receivability of the complaint; work appraisal;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 33 to 36
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, is challenging the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post on the grounds that the decision was not substantiated. "Mutual trust between organisation and staff requires that in such circumstances the applicants should be properly informed of the decision and of the reasons for it. of course the content of the obligation [...] will depend on the sort of decision that has been taken. [...] The principle holds good: the organisation has a duty to state the reasons for the decision, that being an essential condition for proper defence of the official's rights. The staff member is therefore entitled to be given any information necessary for that purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
competition; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; promotion; purport; purpose; refusal; right to reply;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"True, a staff member may not assert any right to promotion and the choice of the successful applicant is at the discretion of the administration, which alone may appraise the organisation's interests. Yet the exercise of discretion is subject to restrictions in law and the Tribunal will to that extent review the decision: see for example Judgment 1016 [...]. So the staff member has undeniably the right to file an internal appeal or a complaint with the Tribunal if he believes that the appointment to a vacancy he has applied for is improper."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; cause of action; competition; complaint; discretion; internal candidate; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; promotion; receivability of the complaint; refusal; right; vacancy notice;
Considerations 33-34
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, challenges the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post. "To refuse promotion to an official who has duly applied for a post in answer to a notice of vacancy does amount to a 'decision adversely affecting' him [...] it is immaterial whether the decision is express [...] or implied in the preference for another applicant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; express decision; implied decision; promotion; refusal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
