Limits (550,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Limits
Total judgments found: 168
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2933
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
According to firm precedent, decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, such as a decision to abolish a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. For this reason, while it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to ascertain whether such a decision has been taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it rests on a mistake of fact or of law, or whether it constituted abuse of authority, it may not rule on its appropriateness, since it may not supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, or 2510, under 10).
Nevertheless, there must be objective grounds for any decision to abolish a post (see Judgments 1231, under 26, or 1729, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; limits;
Judgment 2918
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal's Statute [...] provides that: 'The Tribunal shall also be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations of any [...] international organization [...] which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration, recognizing [...] the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for this purpose, as well as its Rules of Procedure, and which is approved by the Governing Body.' The consequence of that provision is that the Tribunal may hear the two complaints only if the complainant was, at the relevant times, an official of the [organization] and the [organization] has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; limits; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he decision of the chief executive officer of an organisation to recover an unduly paid sum of money falls within his or her discretionary authority and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, but this decision must nevertheless be censured if it is tainted with a formal or procedural irregularity, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; procedural flaw; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]t is not the Tribunal's role to engage in fact-finding and to make a determination on the question of culpability. Instead, the Tribunal's role is to assess whether the decision taken by the Director General is well founded."
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; tribunal;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 97-99
Extract:
The complainant argues that she was discharged from the continuing obligation of confidentiality when her employment was unlawfully terminated.
"There is no doubt that an international civil servant is under an obligation of discretion (see Judgments 1608 and 1732)."
"In the present case, the complainant had unsuccessfully availed herself of internal appeal procedures with respect to the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of IAS, her attempt to raise her claim of harassment had been rejected as 'abusive and ill driven' without investigation and her request for review of the decision not to renew her contract led to her summary dismissal. In these circumstances, it is to be doubted that there was a continuing obligation of complete discretion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1608, 1732
Keywords:
duty of discretion; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's reputation; respect for dignity; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 1131, under 5, «[i]t may not supplant an organisation's view with its own on such matters as a restructuring of posts or redeployment of staff intended to make savings or improve efficiencies». Decisions on them are discretionary and the Tribunal's power of review in this respect is limited."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131
Keywords:
abolition of post; creation of post; discretion; judicial review; limits; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 2848
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"Having regard to the complainant's actions and his persistent, disingenuous attempts to reformulate the contents of communications, the Tribunal finds that the complainant's assertion that he did not reject the offer of the appointment as Chief of Cabinet and Director of ODG is not credible, and that he indeed rejected that offer on 1 August 2002. In the circumstances, the Organization was under no obligation to keep the offer open for any further period. Since it was not kept open, its purported acceptance did not give rise to a binding contract."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; binding character; contract; law of contract; limits; notice; offer; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the complainant has at all stages requested the reclassification of her post to grade P.2, the Tribunal can do no more than order a desk audit on the terms decided by the Director-General. In this respect, consistent precedent has it that classification exercises are to be conducted by the appropriate body and not by the Tribunal (see Judgments 2151, under 9, and 2807, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2151, 2807
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; limits; post classification;
Judgment 2835
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited review. That is, 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 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457
Keywords:
breach; discretion; judicial review; limits; promotion;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"While a candidate is entitled to know the reasons for the rejection of his own candidacy, this does not extend to access to the Selection Board's consideration of the merits of other candidates."
Keywords:
candidate; duty of discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; organisation's duties; selection board;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited judicial review. That is, 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 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; breach; discretion; judicial review; limits; promotion;
Judgment 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the present case, the Secretary-General took a new decision to refer the question of the recognition of domestic partnership to the ITU Council and thereby executed Judgment 2643. There is no basis on which the Tribunal can require anything further, save on a receivable complaint with respect to that new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2643
Keywords:
decision; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; limits; tribunal;
Judgment 2807
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not undertake an exercise to classify or reclassify posts in an organisation's structure [...], since decisions in this sphere lie within the discretion of the organisation and may be set aside only on limited grounds. Such is the case, 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 [...]. In the absence of such grounds, the Tribunal will not remit the case to the organisation, nor will it substitute its own post evaluation for that of the competent bodies [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2151, 2514, 2581
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2803
106th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Although the Director-General will ordinarily be treated as the best judge of what the Organization's interests are and the Tribunal will not ordinarily interfere in his assessment of them, nevertheless it will do so in this case. It is quite inadequate to plead that the decision to transfer the complainant was "in the interests of the Organization". The basis for reaching that conclusion must be made clear so that the Tribunal may exercise its power of review and determine whether there exists any of the grounds for setting aside a discretionary decision of that kind."
"In the present case, [...] the Tribunal considers that the Organization's clear explanation of the reasons for the complainant's transfer enabled it to conduct a review [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post;
Judgment 2800
106th Session, 2009
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"While international organisations have a broad discretion in relation to the abolition of posts, the decision to abolish a post will be reviewable where it can be established that the decision was taken in bad faith."
Keywords:
abolition of post; bad faith; decision; discretion; limits;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension.
"It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; complainant; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2760
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2752
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; claim; condition; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; limits; period; project personnel; provision; separation from service; short-term; written rule;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
