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 3144
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The question as to whether any particular act, or a series of acts, amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the deciding factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances (see Judgment 2553, under 6). In the instant case, it must be found that when the Joint Grievance Panel drew up the report which formed the basis of the Director General’s decision to close the case, thus rejecting equally the arguments of both the complainant and her former direct supervisor, it did not commit any error open to censure by the Tribunal in its evaluation of the facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553
Keywords:
harassment; judicial review;
Judgment 3111
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is well settled, as stated in Judgment 1752, under consideration 9, that the Tribunal "may not replace qualified medical opinion with its own, though it may review the procedure and say whether the doctor's findings show any factual mistake or inconsistency, or overlook an essential fact, or draw a plainly wrong conclusion from the evidence" (see also Judgments 2361, consideration 4, 2551, consideration 9, and 2580, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752, 2361, 2551, 2580
Keywords:
judicial review; medical opinion;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
[I]t is true that deficiencies in the complainant’s performance were noted in the PMDS appraisals. However, as to the alleged assistance that was given to the complainant to improve her performance, other than broad assertions on the part of her supervisor that this was done, there is no evidence of any specific guidance or suggestions given to the complainant by Dr V. in terms of concrete steps or measures that the complainant should take to improve her performance in those areas of identified deficiencies and against which improvement in performance could be monitored and measured. Again, given its importance in assessing the overall suitability of the staff member, it would be expected that the specific directions and expectations would be documented. Equally, it would be expected that the guidance Dr V. provided to the complainant would also be documented.
Keywords:
judicial review; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3063
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal again notes, as it did in consideration 6 of Judgment 2837 concerning the complainant’s first complaint, that by its very nature the decision whether or not to grant a personal promotion is one which is taken at the discretion of the Director-General. As such, it is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 1500, under 5, 1815, under 3, and 2668, under 11). According to this case law, the Tribunal will set such a decision aside only if it shows certain flaws, such as a formal or procedural flaw, or a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, if it was ultra vires, if there was misuse of authority, or if a conclusion drawn from the evidence is obviously wrong.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1815, 2668, 2837
Keywords:
judicial review; personal promotion;
Judgment 3062
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement, signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere 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, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 3006, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Absolute privilege also operates to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. A tribunal would not be independent and impartial, nor seen to be so, if it were to assume the role of dictating to the parties the evidence and arguments that they can advance in their cases. That is not to say that a tribunal cannot control its own proceedings by, for example, excluding irrelevant evidence or striking out scandalous pleadings. Nor does it mean that a tribunal cannot draw inferences by reason of the nature of the evidence or argument presented, including in appropriate cases, adverse inferences as to the motive of the party relying on that evidence or argument. But if the evidence or argument is relevant to the issues to be decided, it is for the parties alone to determine whether they will rely on it. And because the parties must have that freedom or privilege, a tribunal cannot apply sanctions in separate proceedings with respect to the evidence or arguments advanced, particularly not after the proceedings have been completed. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality to litigation."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; evidence; independence; judicial review; submissions;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3039
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2064, under 5, performance reports continue to be useful even if deadlines have not been respected, and failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports. However, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064
Keywords:
breach; condition; consequence; delay; judicial review; performance report; time limit;
Judgment 3037
111th Session, 2011
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls the principle that the lawfulness of a measure must be appraised as at the date of its adoption. In consequence thereof all subsequent facts are irrelevant (see Judgment 2365, under 4(c))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
date; decision; general principle; judicial review; subsequent fact;
Judgment 3016
111th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Rejection of the complainant's request for reclassification of her post following a classification exercise.
"The classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment unless certain grounds are established. Consistent precedent has it that 'the Tribunal will not interfere with the decision [...] unless it was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooks some material fact, or is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts' (see Judgment 1281, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; post; post classification; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3006
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement. It is usual to refer to decisions or recommendations involving a value judgement as 'discretionary', signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue and, if the issue involves a comparison with other persons, they may also hold different views on their comparative rating. The nature of a value judgement means that point-to-point comparisons are not necessarily decisive. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere 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; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2834, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance report; procedural flaw; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3005
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Rejection of a request for conversion of a fixed-term appointment to a permanent one.
"In Judgment 1349, under 11, the Tribunal noted the wide discretion an organisation enjoys in relation to the decision to convert a fixed-term appointment to a permanent one. Given the highly discretionary nature of the decision, it is subject to limited review and will only be set aside 'if it is taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it is based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was an abuse of authority' (see Judgment 2694, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1349, 2694
Keywords:
appointment; contract; decision; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; permanent appointment;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
On the merits, attention must be drawn to the fact that, while the Tribunal may not replace the medical findings of a body such as an invalidity board with its own assessment, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the board’s opinion shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 1284, under 4, or 2361, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; medical board; service-incurred;
Judgment 2977
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Non-confirmation of appointment at the end of probation for unsatisfactory performance.
"It is well settled that 'the widest measure of discretion' attends decisions as to the confirmation or otherwise of probationary appointments (see Judgment 1386, under 17). Such decisions are subject to review only on the grounds that 'there was a mistake of fact or law, or a formal or procedural flaw, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority' (see Judgment 1175, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1175, 1386
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; probationary period;
Judgment 2976
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Grant of an exceptional long-term care benefit for an insured person suffering from complete paralysis below the arms.
"[T]he question whether something should be granted as an 'exceptional' measure is one that invites a value judgement akin to that involved in a discretionary decision. As such, it is subject to only limited review. However, it may be reviewed on the grounds, amongst others, that it involves an error of law and/or that it overlooks some material fact (see, for example, Judgments 1281, under 2, and 2514, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281, 2514
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; medical grounds; medical opinion;
Judgment 2975
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It is well established in the case law that decisions taken in relation to restructuring and the reclassification of posts within an Organization's structure are 'within the discretion of the organisation and may be set aside only on limited grounds [...] for example, if the competent bodies breached procedural rules, or if they acted on some wrong principle, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion' (see Judgment 2807, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2807
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reorganisation;
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, international civil servants do not have a right to promotion (see, for example, Judgments 1207, under 8, or 2006, under 12) and [...] decisions in this domain, which are taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation, are subject to only limited judicial review (see, for example, Judgments 1670, under 14, or 2221, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1207, 1670, 2006, 2221
Keywords:
case law; decision; discretion; executive head; judicial review; limits; official; promotion; right;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, an organisation may not in good faith end someone's appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment must be set aside. However, the evidence does indicate that restructuring was being contemplated and has in fact occurred. In these circumstances, reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy. Rather, the complainant is entitled to be paid the salary and other allowances he would have received had his appointment been renewed for six months, together with interest [...]."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reinstatement; reorganisation;
< 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 >
|
