|
|
 |
|
|
Formal flaw (558, 862,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Formal flaw
Total judgments found: 44
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Mais, si les conditions dans lesquelles il a été procédé au renouvellement du CIPM étaient ainsi incontestablement irrégulières, le Tribunal estime qu’il n’en résulte pas pour autant, compte tenu des observations qui précèdent, que cette irrégularité constituerait un vice substantiel justifiant que le Tribunal déclare illégales les décisions subséquentes édictées par ce comité. Cette conclusion s’impose d’autant plus que l’irrégularité en cause n’affecte en rien les droits des fonctionnaires de l’organisation, dans la mesure où le mode de renouvellement du CIPM est sans rapport avec les garanties dont ils jouissent.
Keywords:
flaw; formal flaw; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4229
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the World Food Programme, challenges the decision to maintain the decision not to renew his contract, and to award him material and moral damages instead of reinstatement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Tribunal considers that the award of 70,000 euros, which the Organization paid to the complainant for the lost opportunity to be considered for renewal, was reasonable. Accordingly, it will be unnecessary to award him any further sum in this regard. Although in the impugned decision the Director-General purported to “set aside” the decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract, the fact remains that the complainant was separated from service without a valid reason and was not reinstated. It is perhaps this, above all, that justifies the significant amount of damages awarded to him by the Director-General. There is no other basis for awarding further damages for the invalid 2012 PACE appraisal report and the unlawful decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment.
Keywords:
fixed-term; formal flaw; loss of opportunity; material damages; non-renewal of contract; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4210
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The fourth argument is that there had been procedural irregularities attending the ABCC’s consideration of his case on 24 May 2017 and 11 December 2017. This is founded on the fact that all members of the ABCC did not sign the minutes of the May and December 2017 meetings. The complainant does not point to any case law or staff rule or regulation that requires all members to sign. Moreover the mere fact that all members did not sign does not even arguably sustain an inference that the decisions actually made were not unanimous (see, for example, Judgments 1763, consideration 13, and 810, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1763
Keywords:
formal flaw; formal requirements; internal appeals body; report; signature;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
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 2980
110th Session, 2011
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"To add candidates to a shortlist after the evaluation process has begun does not comply with the mandatory fairness and transparency of the recruitment process, and could have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the process as every evaluation is conditioned by the quantity and quality of candidates to be evaluated. It could also have the effect of appearing to have been done to satisfy improper interests, regardless of whether or not one of the candidates added at a later date eventually succeeds."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; equal treatment; formal flaw; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2930
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 2922
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he procedure leading to titularisation was never undertaken in the case of the complainant. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the complainant did not have the status of an established official within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the [ILO] Staff Regulations. It follows that she is not justified in claiming that there has been a violation of the formal and procedural rules applicable to the termination of the appointment of an established official [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 2.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations
Keywords:
breach; formal flaw; formal requirements; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; titularization; written rule;
Judgment 2917
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The signing of a document with such important implications for the future career of a staff member is not a mere formality, and insistence on absolute compliance with this rule cannot be dismissed as an unduly formalistic approach. The provision requiring that the appraisal form be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by other persons [...] is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member's skills and performance."
Keywords:
bias; formal flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
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 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 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."
Keywords:
candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;
Judgment 2427
99th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246
Keywords:
abuse of power; case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director-General. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 28-29
Extract:
The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2300
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant contends that the [challenged] decision is unlawful because it is based on an opinion by the Joint Appeals Committee signed by its Chairman alone, whereas it is common practice in Interpol, as in other international organisations, for this type of document to be signed by all members of the Committee. The Organization rightly points out that, in accordance with Article 152(3) of the Staff Rules, the Chairman of the relevant Joint Committee shall sign the consultative opinion. This provision cannot be challenged on the grounds that different practices prevail in other organisations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 152(3) of Interpol's Staff Rules
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; decision; difference; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeals body; organisation; practice; provision; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
