Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Judicial review
Total judgments found: 548
< 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 | next >
Judgment 4083
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is well established that “the grounds for reviewing the classification of a post are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). This is because the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake this process of evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8).” (See Judgment 3589, consideration 4.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3294, 3589
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of the executive head of an international organisation to allow or not to allow a staff member to carry out an assignment outside the organisation is a discretionary decision. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and thus will be set aside only if it has been taken without authority, if there is a formal or procedural flaw, a mistake of law or of fact, or if some essential fact has been overlooked or a clearly mistaken conclusion drawn from the evidence, or if there is misuse of authority (see Judgments 2377, consideration 5, and 3858, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3858
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; outside activity;
Judgment 4066
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law does not guarantee to staff members of an international organization an automatic right to promotion (see Judgment 3495, under 11). It is also well established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. For this reason, such decisions are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2835, under 5, and 3279, under 11). Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision (see Judgment 1827, under 6). The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 1109, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1827, 2835, 3279, 3495
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Inasmuch as the complainant challenges a disciplinary decision, it is recalled that consistent precedent has it that such decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3872
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; discretion; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4062
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that international organizations have wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew fixed-term contracts. Such decisions are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1262, consideration 4, 3586, consideration 6, 3679, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 2, or 3932, consideration 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 3586, 3679, 3743, 3932
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4051
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that disciplinary decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to only limited review. In Judgment 3297, consideration 8, the Tribunal stated that it will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the fact findings of an investigative body unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, consideration 3). In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the complainant did indeed engage in the conduct of which he was accused (see, for example, Judgments 3297, consideration 8, and 3875, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3872, 3875
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; judicial review; proportionality;
Judgment 4023
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated the basic principles which guide it, where a decision such as this is challenged, [...] in Judgment 3652, consideration 7. [...]
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law (see Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 3652, 3669
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4019
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a promotion in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that staff promotions by an international organisation are decisions which lie within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 2834, under 7, 3006, under 7, or 3742, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834, 3006, 3742
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
Since a breach of rules concerning consultation of a staff representative body constitutes a procedural flaw, this plea lies within the scope of review defined above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled that it is not the Tribunal’s role to review an internal appeal body’s findings of fact or assessment of evidence unless they are tainted with manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 3593, under 12, 3682, under 8, or 3831, under 28).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3831
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; judicial review;
Judgment 3994
126th Session, 2018
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges CERN’s refusal to recognise the illness from which she says she suffers as occupational.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that according to consistent precedent, it may not replace the medical findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 1284, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; medical examination; medical opinion;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Disciplinary Committee’s opinion in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the disciplinary proceedings and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is an opinion of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; judicial review;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t is not for the Tribunal to assume the role of fact finder and determine, itself, whether the case is made out that the complainant was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Rather the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether “a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact”, in this case the President.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; investigation; judicial review; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[P]aragraph 8 of [Instruction] IN/217 does not mandate notification to be in writing. The notification of the termination decision may have taken any form which informed the complainant of the subject decision (see Judgment 3505, consideration 8, and the judgments cited therein). Having been verbally notified of the termination decision on 1 March 2015, the complainant’s deadline for sending a request for review was 30 April 2015.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505
Keywords:
decision; formal requirements; judicial review;
Judgment 3945
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The basic applicable principles where a performance appraisal is challenged have been stated as follows, for example in Judgment 3692, consideration 8:
“As the Tribunal has consistently 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 assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene in this area only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the rating given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that rating.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report;
Judgment 3939
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age stipulated in a provision of this kind is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1143, under 3, 2845, under 5, 3285, under 10, or 3765, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 2845, 3285, 3765
Keywords:
age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
There is some support in the Tribunal’s case law for the proposition that it is open to the Tribunal to examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of a post in a challenge to the subsequent termination of a staff member’s employment, even if no legal challenge was made, within time or at all, to the abolition of the post itself (see Judgment 3172, consideration 16). However even if, in the face of more recent case law referred to in the preceding consideration, it is open to the Tribunal to do so, it is for the limited purpose of, for example, ascertaining whether there has been an abuse of authority which entails consideration of whether the decision was taken for an improper purpose. The case law certainly does not provide a licence to examine all or any other aspects of the decision to abolish the post in the context of dealing with a challenge to the subsequent termination of employment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; judicial review; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Considerations 5 & 12
Extract:
With respect to the complainant’s challenge to her 2012 performance evaluation, the basic principles which guide the Tribunal where there is such a challenge were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 3692, consideration 8:
“As the Tribunal has consistently 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 assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene in this area only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the rating given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that rating.”
[...]
It is further found that the review process was tainted with procedural irregularity because, as the complainant contends, she was denied the full list of persons who were requested to give feedback for that exercise. That process was also tainted with procedural irregularity because the complainant was denied access to their synthesized feedback.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3692
Keywords:
judicial review; performance report;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The case law concerning the Tribunal’s consideration of changes to salary structures and grading systems makes clear that the role of the Tribunal is limited and the discretionary power of the organisation to make such changes based on policy or budgetary considerations must ordinarily be respected (see, for example, Judgments 1118, considerations 19 to 20, and 3274, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1118, 3274
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; judicial review; salary;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observed in relation to the arguments advanced by the complainants in those proceedings, that they raised issues of a very technical nature and similar considerations applied as in Judgment 3273, under 6, where the Tribunal noted that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation. Such a decision cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, shows some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlooks some material fact, draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or is an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 2581).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification;
< 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 | next >
|
