Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Advancement under Staff Regulation 3.4 "consists in rising by steps: any staff member qualifies for it who meets the conditions of seniority and 'satisfactory service'. Personal promotion means rising in grade without any change in duties and is a benefit that the Director General may bestow at discretion. He does so only in 'exceptional circumstances' to reward someone for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 3.4
Keywords:
condition; discretion; executive head; increment; personal promotion; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1207
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"A distinction must be drawn between the upgrading of the complainant's post and his own promotion. Any regrading is bound to affect an organisation's structure and will therefore depend on the way in which work is organised. [...]
The fact that pending the outcome he was fulfilling duties pertaining to a more highly graded post that did not yet exist does not entitle him to compensation, let alone retroactive promotion. [...]"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 940, 1016, 1025
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; effective date; organisation's interest; personal promotion; post; post classification; promotion;
Judgment 1109
71st Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In keeping with the scheme for "personal promotion" brought in by Circular 334, "promotion is at the Director-General's discretion, his decision is subject only to limited review, and it may not ordinarily be set aside unless there is some particular fatal flaw. Breach of a procedural rule is such a flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985
Keywords:
discretion; flaw; judicial review; personal promotion; procedural flaw; promotion;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant objects to the decision to refuse him personal promotion under Circular 334. The Tribunal holds that the fact "that the explanation came in this case from the Director-General himself [rather than from the Selection Board as required by paragraph 14 of the Circular] is not [...] a procedural flaw. Paragraph 14 is unenforceable because the Board can explain only its own recommendation and because the text might require it to explain even a decision that ran counter to that recommendation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985
Keywords:
administrative instruction; grounds; personal promotion; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal;
Judgment 994
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Three successive decisions to promote the complainant were taken: a promotion by direct selection from grade G.6 to P.3 as from 1 July 1986; a personal promotion from G.6 to G.7 as from 1 January 1985 and the outcome of a procedure which led to his post being regraded from G.6 to P.3 effective on 1 February 1984. The complainant challenges the Administration's decision to treat the regrading decision as void. The regrading decision was accepted by the complainant and showed no flaw. As it became final on the expiry of the time limit for challenge, the Administration may not go back on it.
Keywords:
condition; cumulative decisions; flaw; personal promotion; post classification; professional category; promotion; time limit; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 870
63rd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It would be in breach of an official's rights as such and a denial of his entitlements under the procedure for personal promotion to discount any of his service, including periods he may have spent on secondment to technical assistance projects. But the complainant is in a quite different case since he was not yet an official when employed on such projects."
Keywords:
equal treatment; field; general principle; headquarters official; official; personal promotion; professional experience; project personnel; promotion; status of complainant;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Such service [technical assistance] may not count for the purpose of personal promotion unless there is an express rule to that effect. There is not. [...] Periods of service [on technical co-operation projects] do not count, not even when, like the complainant, [experts] are later appointed to the staff at headquarters."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; difference; enforcement; field; headquarters official; interpretation; personal promotion; project personnel;
Judgment 845
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant claims 'rapid promotion' by virtue of the exception provided for in paragraph 64 of document CA/PV 10 concerning EPO staff members who were recruited before 1 January 1981. Inasmuch as the complainant was appointed after that date, he is not entitled to the promotion.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; appointment; date; effective date; enforcement; personal promotion; promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Even if an examiner appointed after 1 January 1981 had been promoted contrary to the rapid promotion rule in CA/20/80, that is no reason for unlawfully promoting the complainant. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 614, a complainant may not rely on unlawful treatment which conferred benefit on other staff members: equality in law does not mean equality in the breach of it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 614
Keywords:
appointment; date; difference; effective date; equal treatment; exception; flaw; general principle; personal promotion; promotion;
