|
|
 |
|
|
Advisory opinion (579,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory opinion
Total judgments found: 52
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4292
130th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The FAO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4065.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
In its application for interpretation, the FAO states that while it notes that the five points of the decision in Judgment 4065 are expressed in clear terms, it became apparent from the exchanges of correspondence between the parties (referred to in the foregoing considerations) that they have differing views regarding what the decision requires them to do. This, it states, is because “there appears to be some ambiguity as to what actions are required as a consequence of Point 1 [of the Decision], having regard to Consideration 8 of the Judgment”, on which it requests the Tribunal’s guidance.
The FAO is entitled to apply for the interpretation of consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 as it has done in this instance as, according to the Tribunal’s case law, as stated, for example in Judgment 3984, consideration 10, although ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment, it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision. In this instance, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 4065 incorporated consideration 8 of Judgment 4065. The critical question is whether the application is receivable. As the case law further states, in the said consideration 10 of Judgment 3984, such an application is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed.
The application for interpretation is irreceivable. Consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 is clear and unambiguous. [...] It is not within the Tribunal’s purview to provide an advisory opinion or guidance concerning the steps that are to follow the discussion or what should happen if events unfold in a certain way. The Tribunal reiterates that both the FAO and the complainant must approach the implementation of its order in point 2 and the analysis contained in consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 in a rational, sensible and balanced way, and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see Judgment 3989, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 3989, 4065
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4169
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Since the Appeals Board did not respond to the complainant’s allegations, it is impossible to determine whether the Board gave due consideration to the question of whether the complainant’s partly unfavourable performance rating and the deferral of her within-grade increment owed to prejudice or other extraneous factor, as required under paragraph 5(b) of the Board’s Statutes, which was hence breached. Furthermore, that provision merely illustrates the general principles that apply in this matter, regardless of whether they are laid down in any rule or regulation.
The impugned decision of 27 November 2015 rests on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply accepted. That decision is, consequently, tainted by the same error of law and must be set aside (see, for similar cases, Judgments 2742, consideration 40, 2892, consideration 14, 3490, consideration 18, and 3934, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490, 3934
Keywords:
advisory opinion; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Judgment 3250
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that intent is not a necessary element of harassment and, in this case, it is not a single episode which creates the problem, but instead it is the accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. As such, the JAAB’s finding that “the long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Office […] compromised [the complainant’s] dignity and career” is well founded and the Tribunal is of the opinion that this administrative wrongdoing can be defined as institutional harassment."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; harassment; injury; institutional harassment; organisation's duties; professional injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 3161
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him which, in his view, violates his status as an employee.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"[T]he task of the Internal Appeals Committee is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made. While provisions establishing an internal appeal committee or board may limit its functions, this is not the case in relation to this Internal Appeals Committee established under the Service Regulations applying to the permanent employees of the EPO.
Of course the authority of the Internal Appeals Committee is limited to making recommendations and, to that extent, the ultimate decision-making power remains, in a case such as the present, with the President of the Office. However, the President is obliged to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and not avoid addressing the reasoning of its members by wrongly indicating, as in this case, that the majority of the Committee’s members had exceeded the limits of their role in determining the appeal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; case law; decision; decision-maker; due process; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 2940
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Director-General departed from the Joint Advisory Appeals Board's recommendation. He was entitled to do so provided that he gave clear reasons for not following it, which he did. [...] From a formal point of view, therefore, the impugned decision is beyond criticism."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; formal requirements; grounds; internal appeals body; recommendation; right;
Judgment 2829
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
The complainant filed an appeal with the WIPO Appeal Board challenging the decision to suspend him from duty. The Board held that the appeal was irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule, inasmuch as it had already issued an opinion on the measure of suspension and no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter. The Director General also deemed the appeal irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule.
The Tribunal considers that "[t]he res judicata rule applies to decisions of judicial bodies, but not to opinions or recommendations issued by administrative bodies. The Director General was therefore obviously wrong to cite this rule as the basis for declaring the internal appeal irreceivable on the grounds that the Appeal Board had already given an opinion on the suspension and that no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter."
[...]
"The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury which he suffered owing to the fact that the merits of his internal appeal were not examined."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; allowance; compensation; executive head; general principle; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; res judicata;
Judgment 2667
104th Session, 2008
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The duty to act independently and impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final formal decision in proceedings, but also on bodies responsible for giving an advisory opinion or for making a recommendation to this authority, a fortiori where the recommendation is a formal part of the decision-making process (see Judgment 2315, under 27)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; decision; disciplinary procedure; due process; independence; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;
Judgment 2556
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation adopted a new method of calculating replacement days granted to inspectors returning from a Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities inspection because of the inconsistency between the practice with regard to replacement days and the terms of Administrative Directive AD/PER/12. The complainant contested that new method. Because the earlier practice had become in its view "well established", the Appeals Council recommended that the appeal be upheld, the previous practice reinstated and the replacement days that should have been granted in accordance with that practice reimbursed. The Tribunal considers that "[a]s the practice of granting a replacement day for each Saturday, Sunday or official OPCW holiday falling during an inspection period is inconsistent with the terms of AD/PER/12, that practice cannot be elevated to the status of law so as to entitle the complainant to additional replacement days, as was seemingly thought by the Appeals Council."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: OPCW Administrative Directive AD/PER/12
Keywords:
administrative instruction; advisory opinion; compensatory measure; difference; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; practice; precedence of rules; provision; public holiday; reckoning; recommendation; refund; right; written rule;
Judgment 2524
100th Session, 2006
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 31
Extract:
To advance serious allegations that have not been properly investigated against an official before a body that must issue a decision or recommendation concerning that official amounts to "serious failure of due process and want of fairness and good faith".
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; decision; due process; equity; good faith; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2410
98th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[I]t is CERN's Council which decides pension adjustments; and the individual decisions on pension rates have as their sole legal basis the general decisions taken periodically by CERN's Council, the lawfulness of which may indeed be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against such individual decisions (see Judgments 1000, 1451 and 2129). In this case, the complainant's objections concern only the lawfulness of the position advocated by the Governing Board of the Pension Fund, when it considered that it could not give its backing to the extraordinary pension adjustment requested by the [CERN Pensioners' Association, of which the complainant is the President]. Since this refusal to support the latter's request before CERN's competent bodies cannot be considered as a legislative act of general application, any pleas based on its alleged unlawfulness must fail."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article II.1.15 of the Regulations of the CERN's Pension Fund
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1451, 2129
Keywords:
adjustment; advisory opinion; cern pension fund; decision; executive body; general decision; individual decision; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2363
97th Session, 2004
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;
Judgment 2356
97th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant claims damages for the injury resulting from the inclusion in her personnel file of a memorandum bearing negative remarks about her performance. "While there is no evidence whatsoever to support the complainant's claim that she was humiliated and that her future career prospects were adversely affected by this memorandum, the fact remains that the Appeals Committee found, and the Director-General accepted, that the document should be removed from her file. That necessarily implies an acceptance by the Organization that it had acted wrongly in putting it there in the first place. This entitles her to a nominal award of moral damages which the Tribunal evaluates at 500 euros."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; breach; career; claim; executive head; general service category; grade; injury; internal appeals body; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; personal file; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2354
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; condition; consequence; decision; due process; duty to inform; executive head; flaw; grade; grounds; independence; lack of evidence; official; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2352
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant's post was abolished and his appointment terminated. "It is clear from the [applicable] provisions that [...] the Staff Committee had to be consulted before the decision was taken to terminate the complainant's appointment. The purpose of consulting an advisory body, prior to terminating an official's appointment, is to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head. The Tribunal takes the view that it is established, by the evidence [...], that the Staff Committee was indeed consulted regarding the suppression of the [complainant's] post [...]. However, it considers that the Committee was not formally consulted with regard to the intention to terminate the complainant's appointment. [...] As the impugned decision was taken in breach of the applicable rules, it must be held unlawful and the Tribunal need not rule on the complainant's other pleas."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; condition; consequence; decision; due process; executive head; flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; purpose; recommendation; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
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;
Judgment 2297
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
