Official (704,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Official
Total judgments found: 175
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2294
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
Case of an official who served the Organization for 16 years and always gave satisfaction, whose post was abolished. The Organization states "that although the complainant was entitled to apply for posts which fell vacant after his appointment had been terminated, he did not do so. [T]he Tribunal considers that it was up to [the Organization] to make proposals to the complainant and to give some preference to his application."
Keywords:
abolition of post; appointment; candidate; official; organisation's duties; post; post held by the complainant; priority; reassignment; right; seniority; separation from service; vacancy;
Judgment 2292
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he fact that in connection with pension rights different rules apply according to the place of residence of retired staff members constitutes neither a breach of property rights nor a violation of the principle of equality, provided that the staff concerned are not deprived of any of the rights they enjoy under the statutory and regulatory provisions which apply to them, and that they have freely exercised their right of option."
Keywords:
equal treatment; official; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; provision; residence; written rule;
Judgment 2288
96th Session, 2004
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the safeguard available to international civil servants in the form of the mandatory consultation of an advisory body prior to any disciplinary measure cannot legally speaking be said to be complied with unless that body has held an official meeting, the matter has been discussed among the members and minutes of the meeting have been concomitantly drawn up. In the present case, the complainant was denied an essential safeguard owing to the individual consultation of the Joint Advisory Committee members by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] and the disregard for the procedure established in the Staff Rules."
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; consultation; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; formal requirements; general principle; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the decision impugned before the Tribunal is not an administrative decision, but essentially a political one. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant was an international civil servant who was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision to terminate his appointment. That decision must be viewed as an administrative decision, even though it was taken by the Conference of the States parties."
Keywords:
decision; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat; interpretation; member state; official; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. "In accordance with the established case law of all international administrative tribunals, the Tribunal reaffirms that the independence of international civil servants is an essential guarantee, not only for the civil servants themselves, but also for the proper functioning of international organisations. In the case of heads of organisations, that independence is protected, inter alia, by the fact that they are appointed for a limited term of office. To concede that the authority in which the power of appointment is vested - in this case the Conference of the States parties of the Organisation - may terminate that appointment in its unfettered discretion, would constitute an unacceptable violation of the principles on which international organisations' activities are founded [...], by rendering officials vulnerable to pressures and to political change. The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appointment; breach; case law; condition; discretion; exception; executive body; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; hidden disciplinary measure; iloat; independence; internal appeals body; limits; member state; official; organisation; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment; tribunal;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a non-disciplinary nature is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications (see, for example, Judgments 1496, 1556, 1972 [...]). The transfer may be motivated by the need to eliminate tensions compromising the functioning of a department (see, for example, Judgments 132, 1018 and 1972)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 132, 1018, 1496, 1556, 1972
Keywords:
assignment; case law; decision; discontinuance; effect; formal requirements; general principle; grade; grounds; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; post held by the complainant; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working relations;
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, transfer decisions, which have been initiated by the administration and not at the staff member's request, may be disciplinary, non-disciplinary (in the interests of the organisation, independently of any fault) or even mixed in nature. [...] A transfer dictated by the interests of the organisation but which is also disciplinary in nature must clearly also comply with the specific rules protecting staff members in the case of disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 1929 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929
Keywords:
case law; decision; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; safeguard; transfer;
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the opportunity for the staff member concerned to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged amongst the disciplinary sanctions set out in the staff regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings [...] which may [...] give rise to disciplinary sanctions (see Judgments 1796, 1929 under 7, 1972 under 3 and 4, and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1796, 1929, 1972
Keywords:
case law; consequence; disciplinary measure; disclosure of evidence; evidence; formal requirements; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; participation; right to reply; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2228
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Staff Committee's access to the organisation's internal electronic mail system was withdrawn after the organisation made an objection on technical grounds following the mass distribution of documents. "The Staff Committee is responsible for [...] maintaining "suitable contacts between the competent administrative authorities and the staff", which necessarily implies the availability of adequate means of communication within the organisation... Nevertheless, the incident mentioned by the [organisation] involving the mass distribution of a union report [...] shows that some degree of control is necessary, without jeopardising the Staff Committee's freedom of expression and speech."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; facilities; freedom of speech; liability; official; organisation; publication; purpose; rebuttal; refusal; report; staff union;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;
Judgment 2216
95th Session, 2003
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Article VI 1.01 of ESO's International Staff Rules reads as follows: " 'Every member of the personnel shall have the right to appeal against any decision of the Director General concerning himself.' Thus, a person who is not a "member of the personnel" has no right to launch an internal appeal and his or her only recourse is directly to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VI 1.01 OF ESO'S INTERNATIONAL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; general principle; internal appeal; official; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2183
94th Session, 2003
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"International organisations must take responsibility for decisions of their employees, even if they subsequently condemn those decisions."
Keywords:
decision; liability; official; organisation's duties;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"The principle of the confidentiality of private messages stored in a professional e-mail account must be observed [...] In the event that access to an e-mail account becomes necessary for reasons of urgency or because of the prolonged absence of the account holder, it must be possible for organisations to open the account using appropriate technical safeguards. That state of necessity, justifying access to data which may be confidential, must be assessed with the utmost care."
Keywords:
discretion; force majeure; general principle; leave; official; organisation; organisation's duties; safeguard;
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"An international organisation has a duty to comply with its own internal rules and to conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that these will be followed."
Keywords:
enforcement; official; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Organisation withheld the complainant's salary increment on the grounds that more time was needed to assess her performance. It claims that the complainant refused to cooperate with evaluations. "If that were the case, it was the job of the administration to deal with the situation and not to act as if the complainant did not exist[...] while there is no doubt that an employee cannot obtain the right to an annual salary increment by deliberately sabotaging the reporting process, it is equally the case that an employer cannot deprive its staff of the increments to which they are entitled by failing to complete the necessary preliminary steps."
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; grounds; increase; increment; increment withheld; official; organisation; organisation's duties; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; right; salary; time limit; work appraisal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation withheld the complainant's salary increment on the grounds that more time was needed to assess her performance. The Tribunal concludes from the relevant provisions that "the requirement that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of the annual salary increment is a formal one. The salary increment [...] was not preceded by an evaluation [...] it is the Organisation's responsibility to see to it that [an annual performance] report is prepared on time. a staff member's right to an increment cannot be defeated by the organisation's failure to comply with its own rules."
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; breach; consequence; date; grounds; increase; increment; increment withheld; official; organisation; organisation's duties; performance report; provision; refusal; right; salary; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents.
The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2139
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The right of international officials to resort to all internal and jurisdictional remedies available to them without detriment to their career is an essential guarantee to which the Tribunal attaches the greatest importance."
Keywords:
career; consequence; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; official; right; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 2138
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant requests that he be considered for a long- term contract. He "can take no comfort from the case of another staff member in a somewhat similar situation who was given a long-term contract [...] The awarding of such contracts is exceptional and wholly discretionary and the fact that a contract is granted to one staff member creates no rights for any other staff member."
Keywords:
acceptance; complainant; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; equal treatment; exception; executive head; official; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [state] that, according to the Tribunal's case law (see Judgment 1821, for example), adjustments to international civil servants' salaries must satisfy objective criteria of stability, foreseeability and transparency. The Tribunal considers that this line of precedent - concerning the determination of staff salaries, which is necessarily governed by very strict rules - is not entirely applicable to the determination of allowances granted for a specific purpose, such as that of covering expenses incurred by staff members on travel status. Even if it claims to be acting in the exercise of its discretion, and although the legal framework surrounding its action remains vague or non-existent, the administration must base its decisions on objective considerations and avoid breaching any of the guarantees protecting the independence of international civil servants."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; allowance; analogy; breach; case law; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; independence; no provision; official; official travel; organisation's duties; purpose; safeguard; salary; travel expenses; written rule;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Organization's Regional Office was transferred from Brazzaville (Congo) to Harare (Zimbabwe). The amount of the per diem the complainants were paid was progressively reduced. "Since the travel per diem is merely intended to cover the essential expenses of a staff member on duty travel, including lodging and food, a high rate of travel per diem cannot be justified where duty travel, which by nature implies that the staff member will continue to work primarily at his or her original duty station, lasts for two years or more."
Keywords:
allowance; amount; assignment; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; extension of contract; official; payment; period; place of origin; purpose; rate; reduction of salary; transfer; travel expenses;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2125
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The complainant's request to have his contract extended beyond retirement age was not allowed. "On the merits, the Agency is undoubtedly right in pointing out that the Director General has discretion in the matter, over which the Tribunal has only a limited power of review. This discretion enables the Agency to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [...] Although the Director General can determine the interest of the Agency, his decisions must be based on clear and coherent reasons. In this case, the reason given - that the request for an extension contained no indication as to whether any of the criteria [on the basis of which he may authorise such an extension] had been satisfied - is not valid, and the reason based on 'rejuvenation' of the staff is too general to constitute a sufficient justification for the refusal of the complainant's request." The Tribunal considers that "this reason is not in itself reprehensible, but it could be used to justify a systematic refusal to depart from the rule governing the normal age of retirement. [By setting out the criteria] the [Agency] established for itself a number of rules which it must apply."
Keywords:
age limit; contract; criteria; decision; definition; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; iloat; judicial review; official; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; patere legem; refusal; request by a party; retirement; written rule;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
A paragraph of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat stipulates that the spouse of a staff member shall normally not be employed in the same department as the staff member. The Tribunal considers that "the provision improperly discriminates between candidates for appointment based on their marital status and family relationship [...]. Discrimination on such grounds is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, general principles of law and those which govern the international civil service, as well as international instruments on human rights. [...] All forms of improper discrimination are prohibited. What is improper discrimination? It is, at least in the employment context, the drawing of distinctions between staff members or candidates for appointment on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Manifestly, the fact that two staff members may be married to each other is not relevant to their competence or the capacity of either one of them to fulfil their obligations. and, if it is thought that marital or intimate personal relationships between staff members may create management problems, such problems must be dealt with in ways that do not discriminate against either of them as a result of such relationships. The Tribunal notes that [the notice] as it is written, besides being too broad, is not even effective in dealing with the presumed possibility of undue influence or favouritism for it is silent on non-marital intimate relationships. It also fails to deal with marriages taking place after appointment".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; international instrument; official; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Judgment 2107
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that he should be considered as a fixed-term staff member cannot be sustained. The complainant was recruited as a short-term staff member, without having to go through a competition process; he accepted several contract renewals. It was within the discretionary authority of the Director-General to decide during the years that the complainant was with the organization whether to renew each short-term contract or offer him a fixed-term contract. There is no basis on which the complainant can claim to be treated retroactively as if he had a fixed-term contract. He was at all times a short-term staff member."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; claim; competition; complainant; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; fixed-term; non-retroactivity; official; participation; refusal; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"If the contracts are valid and enforceable and not in breach of any applicable staff rule or principle of international civil service law, the Tribunal has no power to reform them or to remake the bargain which the parties themselves have chosen to make."
Keywords:
acceptance; amendment to the rules; applicable law; competence of tribunal; contract; iloat; international civil service principles; official; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Because of serious financial difficulties the organisation had to employ the complainants simultaneously under a fixed- term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. After being restored to their full-time fixed-term status they complained about the rates of remuneration received by them under their short-term contracts. "The principle which guarantees equal remuneration for work of equal value [...] is designed to prevent discrimination by employers between employees and to ensure that persons performing different work of the same or similar value shall receive equal remuneration. The organization is right to submit that its most common application is to the classification or grading of jobs [...]. That principle was never intended to apply so as to give rise to a claim by an individual to be paid at the same rate for all work which he or she performs: differential rates for work performed under different conditions, such as overtime to take a common example, are not discriminatory. In the present case there is nothing improper in the who's paying lower rates to persons such as the complainants doing temporary work on a short-term basis."
Keywords:
amount; budgetary reasons; condition; contract; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; fixed-term; general principle; official; organisation; overtime; part-time employment; post classification; safeguard; salary; scale; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants worked simultaneously under a fixed-term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. "While it is unusual to find an employee working simultaneously for a single employer under two different contracts of employment, there is nothing inherently illegal about such an arrangement."
Keywords:
contract; difference; exception; fixed-term; official; organisation; part-time employment; short-term; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
