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 3912

  
  125th Session, 2018
  International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  It is convenient [...] to set out the guiding principles in a case in which the classification of a post is challenged. They were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 3589, consideration 4:
  “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). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3903

  
  125th Session, 2018
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

  Considerations 21-22

  Extract:

  It is also well settled in the case law that reasons must be given for every administrative decision affecting a staff member’s rights (see, for example, Judgments 2124, under 3, 3041, under 9, and 3617, under 5). As the underlying rationale for the requirement to give reasons is to safeguard the staff member’s rights, the obligation to give reasons is not satisfied by simply stating the statutory ground upon which the decision is taken. The reasons must give an explanation for the decision itself. A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that the staff member can evaluate whether it should be challenged. As well, an internal appeal body must also know the reasons to determine whether the decision is lawful, as must the Tribunal in order to exercise its power of review (Judgment 3617, under 5).
  In the present case, the failure to give reasons led to confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the nature of the decision. Further, the absence of reasons for the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment left the complainant guessing about the reasons for the decision and impeded his ability to challenge it. Alone, this violation of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules warrants that the impugned decision be set aside.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2124, 3041, 3617
  

  Keywords:

  duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3883

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  It must be borne in mind, that the Tribunal’s role is not to evaluate independently itself the methodology and its application. These are technical issues beyond the remit of the Tribunal and its role is more limited (see Judgment 3360, consideration 4). There is no single hard and fast approach to the application of the Flemming principle and some discretion must be afforded over method (Judgment 1713, consideration 8).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 3360
  

  Keywords:

  flemming principle; judicial review; methodology; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3882

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with immediate effect for misconduct.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls its consistent case law as to the scope of its review powers in a disciplinary case as stated, for example, in consideration 6 of Judgment 3757:
  “[I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; judicial review;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3872

  
  124th Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Considerations 2 and 3

  Extract:

  Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases 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 (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6).
  [T]he Tribunal determines that the complainant’s plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3824

  
  124th Session, 2017
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3421.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal has a limited power of review over the structural arrangements adopted by an international organisation with a view to ensuring the smooth operation of its departments, which may involve creating or abolishing posts and, more generally, redeploying staff (see, inter alia, Judgments 269, under 2, 1131, under 5, 1614, under 3, 2090, under 6, and 2510, under 10)[.]

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1131, 1614, 2090, 2510
  

  Keywords:

  judicial review; reorganisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3689

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contends that he contracted onchocerciasis, a parasitic disease which may eventually lead to blindness, during the performance of his duties as a collector of insects that are vectors of the disease, in Côte d’Ivoire under WHO’s Onchocerciasis Control Programme.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  As a rule, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own opinions for those of medical experts or determine whether or not the physical condition of an official stems from an occupational illness. This does not, however, preclude it from forming an opinion predicated on the diverging conclusion of the competent medical bodies.

  Keywords:

  illness; judicial review; service-incurred;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3678

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him at the end of his probation period.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The complainant [...] disputes the assessment of his performance during his probation period which led to his dismissal. It is firmly established in the case law that the Tribunal has only a limited power of review over such a decision. Thus, the decision will be set aside if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it rests on a mistake of fact or of law, or if there has been abuse of authority, inter alia (see, for example, Judgments 987, under 2, 1817, under 5, or 2715, under 5). But as far as the assessment of the merits of an official is concerned, the Tribunal will not substitute its own opinion for that of the executive head of the organisation or interfere with it unless it finds that that that person has drawn clearly wrong conclusions from the evidence.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 987, 1817, 2715
  

  Keywords:

  judicial review; performance report;
  

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  It is true that there is no evidence in the file to show that the Organization formally notified the complainant during his probation period that there was an objective risk that his appointment would not be confirmed at the end of that period. However, it is clear from the end-probation period report of November 2013, which was forwarded to him and on which he in fact commented, that his supervisor considered that his performance fell short of the expected level. In addition [...], the complainant was informed on several occasions during his probation period that he was not achieving the objectives which had been set for him in his induction interview. In these circumstances, the complainant must have been aware that he ran a serious risk of not having his appointment confirmed at the end of his probation period.

  Keywords:

  judicial review; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3669

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  It is convenient, at the outset, to describe the general legal framework in which the complaint is to be considered. Firstly and fundamentally, the Tribunal accepts that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of rule of form or procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. This formulation is found in many judgments of the Tribunal including, for example, Judgment 3209, consideration 11, and is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to establish some fundamental defect in the selection process. Those defects can include the appointment of a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement (see, for example, Judgment 2712, consideration 8). However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1827, consideration 6: “The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2712, 3209
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3619

  
  121st Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  The complainant’s arguments on these issues involved no more than a very brief tabulation of the conclusions of the IAC which was said to be “incorporated by reference” into the complainant’s legal brief and a “[maintenance] of [the] argumentation as presented during the internal appeal procedure”. This is an entirely unacceptable way of presenting an argument to the Tribunal and creates the real risk that the Tribunal will not appreciate the arguments advanced (see, for example, Judgments 3434, under 5, 2264, under 3(a) [Recte: (e)], and 3538, under 5). The Tribunal will thus focus on the conclusions of the IAC favourable to the complainant.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264, 3434, 3538
  

  Keywords:

  judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3593

  
  121st Session, 2016
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the Director-General’s decision to reject his complaint of harassment and retaliation.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal has consistently stated, as in Judgment 2295, under 10, for example, that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; judicial review;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3537

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a competition procedure and alleges harassment.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the EPO and will only interfere with a selection decision if that 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; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3495

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that she was not promoted in the 2012 promotion exercise.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal has already held in a similar case involving Eurocontrol and another official, while every official should have some prospect of advancement within an organisation and may therefore legitimately hope to move up to a higher position one day, there is no automatic right to promotion. This right is limited, on the one hand, by the official’s seniority, qualifications, skills and performance and, on the other, by the Organisation’s administrative structure and budgetary resources (see Judgment 3404, under 8, and the case law cited therein)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3404
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; judicial review; promotion; right to career advancement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3490

  
  120th Session, 2015
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  "[I]n Judgment 3273, under 6, the Tribunal had occasion to reiterate that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgment 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:

  judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3448

  
  119th Session, 2015
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary. Such a decision is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which respects the freedom of an international organization to determine its own staffing requirements and the career prospects of staff members. A person who is employed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right or a legitimate expectation to a contract extension. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not interfere with a decision not to extend such a contract unless the decision was made without authority, or in breach of a rule of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or amounted to an abuse of authority."

  Keywords:

  discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; legitimate expectation; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3434

  
  119th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264
  

  Keywords:

  complaint; judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3424

  
  119th Session, 2015
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "[T]he undeniable complexity of the procedure [...] does not in itself render unlawful the provisions which established it."

  Keywords:

  judicial review;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3423

  
  119th Session, 2015
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "[T]he undeniable complexity of the procedure [...] does not in itself render unlawful the provisions which established it."

  Keywords:

  judicial review;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3404

  
  119th Session, 2015
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant had not proved that his lack of promotion in 2012 undermined his prospect of advancement within Eurocontrol.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal holds that, while every official should have some prospect of advancement within an organisation and may therefore legitimately hope to move up to a higher position one day, there is no automatic right to promotion. This right is limited, on the one hand, by the official’s seniority, qualifications, skills and performance and, on the other, by the Organisation’s administrative structure and budgetary resources (see Judgments 526, under 4, 3279, under 11, and 3280, under 7, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 526, 3279, 3280
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; judicial review; promotion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3372

  
  118th Session, 2014
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the cancellation of a competition and the appointment resulting from it.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  "According to the case law of the Tribunal, the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary decision of the executive head of the organisation (see Judgment 2584, under 15). Such a decision is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases, and will not replace the organisation’s assessment of the candidates with its own. (See, for example, Judgments 2362, 2365 and 2392, under 10.)"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2362, 2365, 2392, 2584
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; competition; discretion; judicial review;
  

< 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 >