Procedural flaw (559,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Procedural flaw
Total judgments found: 145

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

• Judgment 2096

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

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "The [contract renewal] board was under the obligation to take into account performance appraisal reports [...]. The [complainant's] performance appraisal report for 1999 had not been completed for submission to the board. Yet, before a decision is taken not to renew a contract, precedent has it that it is a fundamental obligation to examine the staff member's performance appraisal. Failure to comply with that obligation constitutes a procedural flaw as it has the effect of excluding an essential fact from consideration (see, in particular, Judgment 1525 [...] and the case law cited therein)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1525
  

  Keywords:

  advisory body; case law; contract; delay; disregard of essential fact; effect; iloat; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2040

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

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal has held in many judgments, a decision by an international organisation to make an appointment is a discretionary one and as such is subject to only limited review. It may be quashed 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 were 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 Judgment 1497 [...])."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2004

  
  90th Session, 2001
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  Out of six candidates, only the complainant was interviewed by video conference. "While the Tribunal is not to be understood as saying that a video conference is not a perfectly acceptable method of conducting interviews, care must always be taken to ensure that no candidate is given a potentially unfair advantage by that process. Flying one person across the ocean to be interviewed while leaving a competitor from the same area at home is open to the interpretation of unequal treatment."

  Keywords:

  bias; competition; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; limits; procedural flaw; remand;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1982

  
  89th Session, 2000
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5(D)

  Extract:

  The complainant was an unsuccessful candidate for a post. The initial competition for the post was cancelled and the complainant argues that the subsequent competition and selection procedure were flawed. Therefore he asks that the decision appointing another candidate be set aside. "The Tribunal's case law has it that it is not necessary to take up the whole procedure when it is easy to determine the point at which it began to be flawed."

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; flaw; procedural flaw; selection board;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1969

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

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal will quash [...] a decision [of a discretionary nature] only if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1881

  
  87th Session, 1999
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 20-21

  Extract:

  "The organization argues that the supervisor's unflattering comments to the Reports Board concerning the complainant 'had nothing to do with the quality of his work during the period being reviewed by the Board'. Even if it were true, the submission is beside the point. Prejudicial comments made to a body advising the decision-maker by one of the parties to a dispute are often irrelevant to the actual substance of the dispute. They are nonetheless prejudicial. If such comments are made, an opportunity must be given to the other party to respond to them. By failing to do this the Reports Board breached its duty of fairness. The report of the Reports Board being vitiated, the decision of the Director-General which is based upon such report cannot stand and must be quashed."

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; bias; equity; flaw; injury; performance report; period; procedural flaw; supervisor; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1878

  
  87th Session, 1999
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 31

  Extract:

  "It is not acceptable that the organization, in defending this complaint, disclaims all responsibility for any alleged shortcomings of the Appeals Board."

  Keywords:

  flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1827

  
  86th Session, 1999
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "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."

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; judicial review; limits; procedural flaw; promotion; qualifications; satisfactory service; selection board; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1814

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

  Considerations 7-8

  Extract:

  The Joint Committee for disputes dealt with the "complaint" by correspondence. The Tribunal considers that the texts provide "that the Committee shall meet', and it meets only if all the full members, or in their absence the alternate members, are present'. On that score alone there was breach of due process and the impugned decision cannot stand."

  Keywords:

  condition; due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; procedural flaw; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1763

  
  85th Session, 1998
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15 and 17

  Extract:

  The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Director of the Division of Personnel [...] was both the chairman of the Disciplinary Board and the head of the department conducting the initial investigation. That the Director of the Division of Personnel should be chairman of the Board is required by paragraph 13(a) of section 13, Part II, of the Agency's Administrative Manual and does not constitute a procedural flaw, but does give rise to a situation in which there is a grave danger of an actual breach of procedural fairness. That is what in fact occurred. As the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the Director had to refrain from personal involvement in the investigation. He must not be both judge and policeman. That, however, is what happened on at least one occasion. [...] This constitutes a serious breach of due process. [...] As chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board, the Director of the Division of Personnel had a duty to be and to appear to be impartial."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 13(A) OF SECTION 13, PART II, OF IAEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
  
  

  Keywords:

  bias; conflict of interest; disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; investigative body; procedural flaw;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Appeals Board asked for and received a legal opinion from the Director of the Legal Division during the appeal. This [...] was a violation of due process because that Director had been a member of the Disciplinary Board, whose recommendation was under appeal. The Agency admits that the Director signed a legal opinion that had been prepared at the request of the Appeals Board. That opinion should not have been given by the Director and should have been rejected by the Appeals Board; the Director simply should not have been involved, in substance or in form, with the Appeals Board's recommendation. A member of the body appealed from may not give legal advice to the body which hears the appeal."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; equity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1741

  
  85th Session, 1998
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15-16

  Extract:

  "Whatever his rank was in the programme the complainant was entitled to appraisal that was in keeping with the written rules or at least so far observed due process as to afford him the opportunity of adding any timely comments of his own for entry in his personal file. [...] [T]he conclusion is that for want of any properly made appraisal there is no objective and reliable means of reviewing the grounds for non-renewal. The impugned decision cannot stand."

  Keywords:

  decision; due process; grade; grounds; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1696

  
  84th Session, 1998
  World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The wording of Regulation 9 (b)(3) is plain: the decision to terminate an appointment at the end of probation may be taken only 'after consultation with an advisory body', the Staff Committee." The Organisation submits that it need only speak to the Chairman. But the Committee has several members who are supposed to function as a single body. The Orgnanisation's argument postulates prior delegation of authority to the Committee's Chairman or officers. To be valid, however, such delegation must have some basis in the rules. Failing that, any action "will be ultra vires" there being wrongful failure to consult the Staff Committee, the impugned decision must, in line with patere legem, be set aside.

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: CCC STAFF REGULATIONS 9(B)(3)
  
  

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; decision; delegated authority; due process; organisation's duties; patere legem; probationary period; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1675

  
  84th Session, 1998
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "[The Organisation] pleads that the hearing of witnesses by the Disciplinary Board need not be adversarial and that the inquiry will be if the Board hears witnesses called by both sides. the plea is mistaken. An inquiry will be adversarial only if the parties attend, or have at least been duly invited to attend, the hearing of witnesses."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: RULE NO. 12 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
  
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to reply; testimony;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1660

  
  83rd Session, 1997
  European Free Trade Association
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  Insofar as the seven Member States continued to be jointly responsible for the Staff Insurance Scheme (SIS) "the delegation of authority was quite proper. What is more, it was quite understandable since the seven countries still owed the serving and the retired staff joint responsibility for safeguarding their entitlements. That is how the three departing countries were associated in the decisions of the future of the SIS. Besides, the decisions were unanimous, and there can have been no procedural flaw in the mere attendance - which was highly desirable anyway - of representatives of the former Member States as well." The plea of incompetence must, therefore, be rejected.

  Keywords:

  competence; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive body; member state; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1658

  
  83rd Session, 1997
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  "The complainant asks the Tribunal to adjourn the case until a decision has been taken by the [...] Administrative Council of the EPO - on his application for referral of Judgment 1333 [...] to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. [...] The Tribunal asked the Organisation what was the status of any application from the complainant to the Administrative Council for such referral. The Organisation replied [...] enclosing a copy of a letter that the Chairman of its Council had written to the complainant [...] explaining that the conditions for such referral were not fulfilled: the Council was satisfied, said its Chairman, that the Tribunal had been competent to hear the case and that there had been no fundamental fault in the procedure followed. Since the complainant's application for referral to the court has been refused the Tribunal will now take up the case."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1333
  

  Keywords:

  advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; complainant; executive body; icj; judgment of the tribunal; procedural flaw; request by a party; submissions;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1592

  
  82nd Session, 1997
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[The complainant] pleads 'grave breaches' of due process in his [...] complaint. But the only one he cites is the rejection of his application for hearings. As the Tribunal has said time and again - for example in Judgment 442 [...] - failure to hear evidence is not an admissible plea for review."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
  

  Keywords:

  application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1576

  
  82nd Session, 1997
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "Since the award of end-of-service promotion falls within the Director-General's discretion, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review: it will intervene only if there has been breach of some rule of form or procedure or a mistake of law or fact or failure to take some essential fact into account."

  Keywords:

  discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; procedural flaw; promotion; separation from service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1549

  
  81st Session, 1996
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "Whether [the complainant who is now retired] still has any interest in the quashing of someone else's appointment is moot; but he still has an interest in exposing a breach of due process which may warrant an award of damages: see Judgment 729 [...]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 729
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; cause of action; claim moot; compensation; competition; due process; flaw; internal candidate; post; procedural flaw; receivability of the complaint; retirement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1548

  
  81st Session, 1996
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 21

  Extract:

  The grounds for non-renewal being deterioration from 1990 in the complainant's performance and conduct, "the burden is on the Organization to show that its decision rested upon proper appraisal of the complainant's performance. [...] All the reports up to September 1990 having been satisfactory, the Organization's failure to have proper appraisal reports made since then is a flaw in the decision."

  Keywords:

  breach; burden of proof; conduct; contract; decision; different appraisals; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; period; procedural flaw; rating; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1527

  
  81st Session, 1996
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant is challenging the lawfulness of the appointment of another official, who was promoted without a competition to a post for which the complainant considered himself qualified. The Tribunal holds that the post should "have been properly advertised and a selection made by competition." Even though the other official "had been performing the duties for about a year on her own G.7 post of administrative assistant, she could have been appointed to the vacant post only after the prescribed procedure had been followed. the itu was not free to bypass the procedure by promoting her to P.3."

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; flaw; procedural flaw; promotion; vacancy; vacancy notice;
  

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