Executive head (549,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Executive head
Total judgments found: 209

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

• Judgment 2198

  
  94th Session, 2003
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 12-13

  Extract:

  The complainant worked, from 1993 to 2000, under a series of short-term contracts of varying durations. "It was clearly within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide whether to renew the complainant's short-term contract or offer him a fixed-term contract. The complainant cannot now claim to be treated retroactively as if he had a fixed-term contract; he was at all times a short-term staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2107, under 10). [...] Precedent has it that, at the discretion of the executive head, a temporary appointment may be extended or converted to a fixed-term appointment, but it does not carry any expectation of, nor imply any right to, such extension or conversion and shall, unless extended or converted, expire according to its terms, without notice or indemnity (see, in particular, Judgment 1560, under 4)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560, 2107
  

  Keywords:

  contract; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; non-retroactivity; notice; right; short-term; successive contracts; terminal entitlements;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2193

  
  94th Session, 2003
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependent on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. "The complainant submits that, since the Director-General is entitled to modify or create exceptions to the application of the Staff Rules, he could and ought to have made an exception in the present case or amended the disputed text in order to protect the rights of homosexuals. [...] However, irrespective of the validity of the arguments put forward in urging the Director-General to take individual choices into account in the context of a culture of tolerance compatible with changing moral beliefs, the Director-General cannot be compelled to resort to what is merely an option open to him under certain clearly defined circumstances, since exercising that option is entirely a matter of discretion."

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; contract; dependant; discretion; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2175

  
  94th Session, 2003
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11(c)

  Extract:

  "The complainant states that the Director-General based the decision not to renew his contract on the false assumption that he was using [his] project for self-enrichment purposes. If that were true, however, it would be grounds for immediate termination and not merely non-renewal of a fixed-term contract."

  Keywords:

  contract; decision; executive head; fixed-term; grounds; misconduct; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; termination of employment; unjust enrichment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2138

  
  93rd Session, 2002
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The complainant requests that he be considered for a long- term contract. He "can take no comfort from the case of another staff member in a somewhat similar situation who was given a long-term contract [...] The awarding of such contracts is exceptional and wholly discretionary and the fact that a contract is granted to one staff member creates no rights for any other staff member."

  Keywords:

  acceptance; complainant; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; equal treatment; exception; executive head; official; request by a party; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2125

  
  93rd Session, 2002
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 5-6

  Extract:

  The complainant's request to have his contract extended beyond retirement age was not allowed. "On the merits, the Agency is undoubtedly right in pointing out that the Director General has discretion in the matter, over which the Tribunal has only a limited power of review. This discretion enables the Agency to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [...] Although the Director General can determine the interest of the Agency, his decisions must be based on clear and coherent reasons. In this case, the reason given - that the request for an extension contained no indication as to whether any of the criteria [on the basis of which he may authorise such an extension] had been satisfied - is not valid, and the reason based on 'rejuvenation' of the staff is too general to constitute a sufficient justification for the refusal of the complainant's request." The Tribunal considers that "this reason is not in itself reprehensible, but it could be used to justify a systematic refusal to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [By setting out the criteria] the [Agency] established for itself a number of rules which it must apply."

  Keywords:

  age limit; contract; criteria; decision; definition; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; iloat; judicial review; official; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; patere legem; refusal; request by a party; retirement; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2107

  
  92nd Session, 2002
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "The complainant's claim that he should be considered as a fixed-term staff member cannot be sustained. The complainant was recruited as a short-term staff member, without having to go through a competition process; he accepted several contract renewals. It was within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide during the years that the complainant was with the organization whether to renew each short-term contract or offer him a fixed-term contract. There is no basis on which the complainant can claim to be treated retroactively as if he had a fixed-term contract. He was at all times a short-term staff member."

  Keywords:

  acceptance; appointment; claim; competition; complainant; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; fixed-term; non-retroactivity; official; participation; refusal; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2092

  
  92nd Session, 2002
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."

  Keywords:

  acceptance; advisory opinion; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2083

  
  92nd Session, 2002
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  The complainant suffered from retinal detachments and a detachment of the vitreous. The organization recognised her eye condition as service incurred. In "September 1998 [...] the [organization] decide[d] to stop reimbursing the bills [she submitted] on [the] grounds [...] that curing her retinal detachments was no longer the object of the treatment. However, it did not show that the service-incurred injuries were not a "direct and principal" cause of the treatment [... ] The Tribunal takes the view that although, as the organization says, the decision to stop reimbursing the bills was at the discretion of the Director-General, it could not be taken without an independent expert medical opinion obtained through a process which provides all the safeguards of transparency and impartiality." The case is therefore sent back to the organization.

  Keywords:

  consequence; decision; discretion; due process; executive head; expert inquiry; grounds; illness; independence; lack of evidence; medical expenses; medical opinion; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; professional accident; refund; refusal; safeguard; service-incurred;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2080

  
  92nd Session, 2002
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 14-15

  Extract:

  "The Director-General, in exercise of his discretionary authority and taking into account the overall interests of the organisation, decided that the [complainant's] post [...] should be redefined and that [his] contract should not be renewed. The Tribunal accepts that the organisation was entitled to adapt to changes and to modify the job description for the given post in view of the organisation's future needs."

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's interest; post description; post held by the complainant; reorganisation; right;
  

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  The complainant's contract was not renewed upon expiry. "Interim Staff Rule 4.4.02(b) provides that separation as a result of the expiration of an appointment shall not be regarded as a termination [...] Rule 9.1.01(b) defines termination [...] as any separation initiated by the Director-General, other than the expiration of a contract. Therefore, the question of any termination indemnity payable to the complainant does not arise."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: OPCW INTERIM STAFF RULE 4.4.02(B), OPCW INTERIM STAFF RULE 9.1.01(B)
  
  

  Keywords:

  consequence; contract; decision; definition; difference; executive head; non-renewal of contract; official; provision; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; terminal entitlements; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2074

  
  91st Session, 2001
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. "The complainant claims the right of preference which is accorded, when candidates are equally competent, to internal applicants [...] In view of its objective, which is to secure the best possible employees for an organisation, equality of competence applies to all the abilities required of an employee, both professional and personal. The Secretary-General did not overstep his discretionary authority by concluding that the overall aptitude of the candidates was not equal. The plea must therefore fail."

  Keywords:

  candidate; competition; condition; discretion; executive head; internal candidate; no cause of action; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; refusal; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2065

  
  91st Session, 2001
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  "In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."

  Keywords:

  application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2027

  
  90th Session, 2001
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2025

  
  90th Session, 2001
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The complaint was transferred to the field against his liking. At the end of the internal procedure, the organisation decided to reassign him to Headquarters. "It thereby admitted [...] that it had failed to assess the complainant's circumstances with the care required by administrative decisions that affect its staff. That in itself warrants the conclusion that, even though his assignment [to Headquarters] met the complainant's wishes in part, it did not fully make up for the injury caused by his transfer [to the field]. Consequently [...] the Director-General was wrong not to award him the compensation he had claimed."

  Keywords:

  compensation; executive head; field; headquarters; injury; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reassignment; refusal; request by a party; transfer;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2024

  
  90th Session, 2001
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The decision of the President of the European Patent Office complies with the requests the complainant had made in her internal appeals. "Therefore, the complainant has received satisfaction and shows no cause of action with respect to the impugned decision."

  Keywords:

  cause of action; decision; executive head; internal appeal; lack of injury; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2018

  
  90th Session, 2001
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 14-15

  Extract:

  The complainant attacks the decision not to confirm his appointment after a probationary period and to terminate his employment prior to the expiry of his fixed-term contract. "The Tribunal [...] notes that [...] the organisation's legal division advised the administration of the procedure to be followed in terminating the complainant's appointment. Specifically [...] the administration was advised of its obligation to set up a special advisory board to investigate the case and to report back to the Director-General. This advice, like the [...] findings of the Special Advisory Board, appear inexplicably to have been simply ignored by the Director-General. In the circumstances, the impugned decision [...] must be quashed."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; contract; decision quashed; executive head; fixed-term; organisation's duties; probationary period; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1973

  
  89th Session, 2000
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal has always held that personal promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward someone for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. The granting of personal promotion is a discretionary decision which, as firm precedent has it, is subject to only limited review and will stand unless it shows a fatal flaw. In a case such as the present one, in which the general rules regarding personal promotions have been adopted and communicated to the staff, the appointing authority is bound by these rules and the Tribunal will consider any violation of them to be a fatal flaw."

  Keywords:

  breach; case law; discretion; executive head; flaw; judicial review; limits; patere legem; personal promotion; promotion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1972

  
  89th Session, 2000
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 3-4

  Extract:

  The complainant, a director of a department, was made aware of two e-mails which were written in highly indecorous terms and, although private, commented on the running of the department. The Staff Union Committee protested against what it considered to be an invasion of privacy. The complainant did not respect the order to use discretion issued by the Director of Personnel. The Director-General, considering the complainant incapable in his function as Director of a department to maintain a stable and productive working environment, transferred him to a post of special advisor. "As the Tribunal held in Judgment 1018 [...], it is the duty of the head of any international organisation to take whatever measures can reduce tensions among his staff, and a transfer in the interests of the service may be an appropriate way of settling a conflictual situation. [...] However, since it cannot be regarded as disciplinary, the measure must, as the case law prescribes, heed the staff member's dignity and good name and not cause him undue suffering. Clearly, in this case the complainant was bound to view the measure as downgrading him. However, the fact that the organization was at pains to find him an assignment in keeping with his competence if not his wishes, to maintain his grade and to exercise the utmost discretion in dealing with the matter, shows that everything was done to protect his dignity as a senior official."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1018
  

  Keywords:

  conduct; discretion; downgrading; executive head; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's interest; respect for dignity; transfer; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1968

  
  89th Session, 2000
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 17-18

  Extract:

  "In the present case, the President sought, but failed to obtain, the Promotion Board's approval for his proposal to promote Mr C. While the President clearly has a residual discretion not to make promotions which the Board recommends, he may only make promotions in accordance with the Board's recommendations. Since the Board declined to recommend Mr C. for promotion, his promotion was irregular. [...] Furthermore, as the appointing authority, it was clearly inappropriate for the President, having urged the Promotion Board to treat Mr C. as a special case, to then disregard the Board's refusal to recommend the promotion. The decision cannot stand."

  Keywords:

  advisory opinion; discretion; exception; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; refusal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1834

  
  86th Session, 1999
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The complainant [pleads] that the decision to terminate [her appointment] was not 'initiated' by the Director-General, as Staff Rule 110.04 required. [I]n the context of the Staff Rule the word 'initiated' does not mean that the Director-General himself must be the first person in the administration to take any action at all; it simply requires that the action, when taken, be on the Director-General's behalf and with his prior approval."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF RULE 110.04
  
  

  Keywords:

  competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1814

  
  86th Session, 1999
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "Though the Director General does have discretion [as to who may be considered as a dependent child], the staff member must be made aware of any criteria he is applying." (See Judgment 1204.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204
  

  Keywords:

  criteria; dependant; dependent child; discretion; duty to inform; executive head; family allowance; limits; organisation's duties; parent;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >