Advisory body (81,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory body
Total judgments found: 98
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 3126
113th Session, 2012
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
"This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 3010
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of contract following restructuring / Failure by the Organization to consult the joint advisory body (Appointment and Promotion Board) prior to terminating the complainant's contract .
"[T]he purpose of a provision requiring referral of the proposed termination of a contract to an advisory body is, as stated in Judgment 2352, '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'".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2352
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; contract; decision; executive head; provision; purpose; recommendation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; exception; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; official; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard;
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 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2875, [...] which raises the same issue in substance as the present case, the Tribunal held that, to the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]. Although the complainants in this case have not based their arguments on the Pension Scheme Regulations, the rulings in considerations 6 to 10 of that judgment are equally applicable to their complaints."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2875
Keywords:
advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2876
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee.
"In Judgment 2875, [...] which raises the same issue in substance as the present case, the Tribunal held that, to the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]. Although the complainants in this case have not based their arguments on the Pension Scheme Regulations, the rulings in considerations 6 to 10 of that judgment are equally applicable to their complaints."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2875
Keywords:
advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2875
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In their capacity as members of the General Advisory Committee, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee.
"[T]o the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 10(2) Pension Scheme Regulations; Articles 1(5) and 38(3) Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
Keywords:
advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."
Keywords:
administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the complainant has at all stages requested the reclassification of her post to grade P.2, the Tribunal can do no more than order a desk audit on the terms decided by the Director-General. In this respect, consistent precedent has it that classification exercises are to be conducted by the appropriate body and not by the Tribunal (see Judgments 2151, under 9, and 2807, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2151, 2807
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; limits; post classification;
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 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if he or she so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgment 2496, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2724
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Reports Board, which is set up by the Director-General and establishes its own procedure, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations, cannot be regarded as either an internal appeals body or a judicial body. Where an official has had the opportunity to state his or her point of view before the Board and to comment on the relevant supervisors' assessments of his or her performance and conduct, the adversarial principle can reasonably be deemed to have been observed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations of the ILO
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; conduct; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant did not receive the Reports Board's recommendation, which constituted the basis of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The Tribunal considers that in the present case the complainant is entitled to see the Reports Board's recommendation, an essential document on which the Administration based its decision not to renew his contract. By withholding that document the Organization deprived the complainant of an item of evidence that was essential for the preparation of his defence and the Tribunal of a document enabling it to exercise its power of review.
Accordingly there are grounds for ordering further submissions in order that the file may be supplemented with a copy of the Reports Board's recommendation, as requested by the complainant."
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; complainant; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; right;
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 2616
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The failure of the [Joint Disciplinary Committee] and, in turn, the Director-General to take into account the highly relevant evidence as to the complainant's health [...] constitutes an error of law."
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; health reasons; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2615
102nd Session, 2007
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
This explanation is hardly satisfactory [i.e. “[t]he fact that the Finance Committee did not have a copy of the actuarial review or an opportunity to hear a presentation from the actuary […] cannot have a bearing on the lawfulness of the Council’s decision. Indeed […] according to the applicable rules and regulations, it is the Governing Board that must receive and discuss actuarial reviews of the Pension Fund. The Finance Committee and the CERN Council are informed of its opinion and decide whether to follow the recommendations it issues.”]. Procedural rules which provide for prior consultation or discussion, and which entrust certain bodies with the task of formulating an opinion or a recommendation before a decision is taken, are established particularly in order that the decision-making authority may be informed as objectively and fully as possible about interests worthy of protection which its decision may harm; this should make it easier to gain the support of those concerned by the decision and should ultimately contribute to its smooth implementation. Advisory bodies can naturally play their role only if they have access to all the relevant information necessary for the formulation of their opinion.
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; impartiality;
Judgment 2601
102nd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal does not consider that in this case the requirements of due process were disregarded. The complainant was informed of the statements taken immediately after the incident and those gathered subsequently, and indeed of the observations made by the Chief of the Conferences Department, and he had several opportunities to express his own views and to comment on the documents submitted to the Joint Advisory Committee. There was no written rule or principle which obliged the Administration to take down those statements in the presence of the complainant, given that they were not used without his knowledge, or to hold a face-to-face meeting or a reconstitution on the spot of this regrettable incident."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1133
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; inquiry; investigation; right to reply; testimony;
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 2520
100th Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"It is well settled that candidates are entitled to equal treatment in a competition for an advertised post (see Judgment 1990). It is an important aspect of the principle of equality that all candidates be considered objectively. Necessarily, a person's candidacy should not be evaluated by a person whose impartiality is open to question on reasonable grounds. The rule applies not only to those making or participating in the actual decision but also to those who have an advisory role, for they may exert influence on the ultimate decision (see Judgment 179). [...] To say that a person should not participate in the selection of candidates for an advertised position if his or her impartiality is reasonably open to question is not to say that a person should not have had a professional relationship with, or even supervisory responsibility for, one or more of the candidates. However, if the relationship goes beyond the proper bounds of a professional or supervisory relationship, there may well be reasonable grounds to question the impartiality of the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 1990
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; candidate; case law; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; equal treatment; impartiality; post; selection board; supervisor;
Judgment 2496
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
