Advisory opinion (579,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory opinion
Total judgments found: 52
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
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 2036
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Members of an advisory body are entitled to challenge a measure (for which an advisory opinion should have been sought) on the grounds that prior consultation with the advisory body did not take place.
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; complainant; consultation; decision; locus standi; receivability of the complaint;
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 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 1912
88th Session, 2000
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The organisation amended the Staff Regulations. The text adopted by the Council was a simplified version of the text that had been submitted for the opinion of a committee having staff representatives. The organisation maintains that the Chairman of the Staff Association indicated that the opposition to the text on the grounds of principle was unlikely to be removed by the simplified text and that another meeting of the Committee would be useless. "The fact that the Chairman of the Staff Association has made his position known does not mean that there is no need to consult an official body, made up of representatives of the administration and the staff who are entitled to make their views known quite independently and whose opinions can develop in the course of a discussion."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; amendment to the rules; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The organisation amended the Staff Regulations. The text adopted by the Council was a simplified version of text that had been submitted for the opinion of a committee having staff representatives. "A further consultation of a body which must give its opinion on a draft text is necessary only if substantial changes are made to the text[...]."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; amendment to the rules; organisation's duties; purport; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1815
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Board responsible for appraising the complainant's application for personal promotion had put forward a negative recommendation. "To ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome. And one such item is the names of the Advisory Body's members. Who they are may of course affect its reasoning and the weight its report carries, and so the staff member should be allowed at least to comment. That is why the Tribunal will acknowledge a complainant's right to know who sat in his case."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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 1673
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The duty to explain a decision or a conclusion "will be discharged even if the reasons are stated in some other text to which there is express or even implied reference, for example where a higher authority endorses the reasoning of a lower one or a recommendation by some advisory body."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1525
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consulting an advisory board before the Director-General takes a decision not to extend an appointment "is no idle formality: it is supposed to afford a means of working out a fair solution. In this case it offered the hope of redeploying someone with a long record of service.Several judgments have stressed the importance of advisory boards: see for example Judgment 352 [...], under 5."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 352
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; contract; decision; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; patere legem; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; staff member's interest;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Director-General took a premature decision not to renew the complainant's appointment. The Tribunal holds that "for want of a valid decision to terminate his appointment, the contract between the complainant and the organization is still in force and he is entitled to payment of salary and allowances as from the purported date of termination. UNESCO must also decide whether to reinstate him. In view of his seniority his appointment would not have been bound to end if due process had been observed. In deciding whether or not to renew his contract the organization must comply with any procedural and substantive rules that are material."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; consequence; contract; extension of contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; procedural flaw; reinstatement;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization has "discharged its duty to take an express decision duly giving its reasons for not reinstating him. Its decision [not to reinstate him] takes seriatim all the posts he might have been appointed to. It explains the reasons of fact or law why it came to the view that his training, experience or grasp of languages or the need for special skills disqualified him for some posts. The reasons why he was not appointed to others had to do with the budget, some posts being 'frozen'. Or else the reasons were administrative: for example the Appointment and Promotion Board was not in favour, or the organization gave priority to a permanent employee."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for execution; budgetary reasons; due process; duration of appointment; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; knowledge of languages; organisation's duties; permanent appointment; priority; professional experience; promotion board; qualifications; refusal; reinstatement; selection board; training;
Judgment 1458
79th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Advisory Committee on Post Adjustment Questions (ACPAQ) is a subsidiary body of the International Civil Service Commission set up with the approval of the General Assembly to make recommendations on the general administration of the system of post adjustments. "It has no authority to make decisions. Its recommendations become part of the post adjustment system only when approved by the Commission. The conclusion is that the recommendation of ACPAQ [...] has no binding force and is therefore irrelevant".
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; icsc decision; internal appeals body; post adjustment; recommendation;
Judgment 1422
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has ruled in Judgment 988 "that Regulation 4.9 allows the Secretary-General to promote someone even against the Appointment and Promotion Board's advice and is intended as a safeguard to ensure compliance with the rules on appointment and promotion. The intent is not to enable the Secretary-General to prefer a weaker candidate on compassionate or indeed any other grounds."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 4.9
ILOAT Judgment(s): 988
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; case law; discretion; due process; enforcement; executive head; interpretation; promotion; promotion board; safeguard; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1398
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The President has wide discretion over the organisation of work and he is not bound to consult the advisory bodies set up under the Service Regulations before introducing new means of improving staff efficiency. In any event the impugned decision made no change in the rules on work arrangements that required such consultation under Article 38."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 38 EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; discretion; executive head; organisation's interest; reorganisation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law - especially Judgment 1235 [...] - the Director-General is not bound by the appointment and Promotion Committee's recommendations and in particular need not appoint the candidate the Committee has put first. In the exercise of discretion, he must ensure that his choice is not tainted with any mistake of law or fact and, to allow the tribunal to exercise its power of review, he must state the reasons for his decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1235
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; promotion board;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects his plea "that the Director-General erred in law by assuming that he was empowered to disregard the Appointment and Promotion Committee's 'decisions'. What the Committee does is advise, not decide, and the Director-General simply exercised his discretion in choosing between the candidates on its short-list. Although [...] he must exercise such discretion lawfully he is not bound by the Committee's ranking of candidates."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; candidate; competition; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; promotion board;
Judgment 1346
77th Session, 1994
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct. He submits that "the punishment is out of proportion to any offence he may have committed. [...] He is wrong. As the Joint Disciplinary Committee unanimously held, he was guilty of 'wilful and repeated insubordination', had never since shown 'the slightest contrition or change of mind' and had offered 'unacceptable explanations for his behaviour'. The conclusion is that in the circumstances there was nothing disproportionate about the sanction."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; insubordination; misconduct; proportionality; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1248
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "applies to the Tribunal for appointment of an expert to inquire into the scientific issues. His application is disallowed because the evidence he submits casts no doubt on the soundness of the medical opinion the organisation is relying on. For the same reason the Tribunal rejects his application for hearings."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; appraisal of evidence; expert inquiry; further submissions; medical opinion; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 1138
72nd Session, 1992
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant "is mistaken in thinking that the Director-General was bound to accept the Board's recommendations. What it offered was advice that there should be further assessment of him [...] but that advice was not accepted: the Director-General decided instead to abide by the decision not to renew his contract. That cannot be construed as the overlooking of any essential fact."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; recommendation;
Judgment 1131
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that UNESCO's decision to separate the complainant from service after it abolished his post was flawed by the Organization's failure to abide by the rules in Circular No. 1583. The report of the Joint Co-Operation Committee, which was to make a recommendation on the case, gives no evidence of any discussion of the administration's proposals concerning the complainant. What is more, the proposal to freeze his post did not come from the competent authority. A redeployment proposal was rejected without having been discussed or put to the Director-General as required by the circular. As the complainant is not seeking reinstatement, the Tribunal grants him redress for material injury in the amount of one year's full pay.
Keywords:
abolition of post; administrative instruction; advisory body; advisory opinion; competence; consultation; decision-maker; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; reassignment; separation from service;
Judgment 1127
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"There is no requirement in the Rules that [the report of an advisory body] should be communicated to the official before the Director General takes his decision. In any event the complainant has had the opportunity of addressing the contents of the report in her pleadings to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; disclosure of evidence; lack of injury; report; right to reply; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
