Advisory body (81,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory body
Total judgments found: 98
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 2432
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal takes the view that, before taking a final decision, any collegiate body must meet to deliberate. A meeting may not be absolutely necessary, however, [...]if the Committee members agree on all the points of their individual reports.
In this case, in view of the uncertainty regarding the period referred to in assessing the seriousness of the complainant's illness, of the fact that she was suffering from afflictions requiring treatment by different medical specialists and of the differences of opinion which emerged regarding the seriousness of the illness and the incapacity it caused, the Tribunal considers that the Invalidity Committee should have met before issuing its final decision. Since no meeting took place, the procedure leading up to the impugned decision is flawed even though the practitioner appointed by the complainant did not raise any objection. The decision must therefore be set aside and the case sent back to the Organisation for reconsideration of the question [...]"
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; due process; invalidity; procedural flaw; remand;
Judgment 2424
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;
Consideration 13
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
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 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 28-29
Extract:
The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
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 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 2285
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that it need not ascertain whether procedural irregularities were committed by the Ombudsperson, since the latter merely put forward a proposal which did not constitute a decision and which was addressed exclusively to the complainant, inviting her to relinquish her management responsibilities, that is, to resign. The only decision the complainant can challenge is precisely that which she alleges was unlawful, namely the decision [taken on behalf of the Director-General to release her from her position], which was independent of the Ombudsperson's proposal. Even though there is no doubt that it was the outcome of the Ombudsperson's investigations which led the [...] authorities to take the challenged decision, the lawfulness of that decision must be assessed independently of the Ombudsperson's proposal."
Keywords:
advisory body; decision; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; resignation; submissions; transfer;
Judgment 2121
93rd Session, 2002
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 14
Extract:
The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;
Judgment 2096
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The [contract renewal] board was under the obligation to take into account performance appraisal reports [...]. The [complainant's] performance appraisal report for 1999 had not been completed for submission to the board. Yet, before a decision is taken not to renew a contract, precedent has it that it is a fundamental obligation to examine the staff member's performance appraisal. Failure to comply with that obligation constitutes a procedural flaw as it has the effect of excluding an essential fact from consideration (see, in particular, Judgment 1525 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1525
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; contract; delay; disregard of essential fact; effect; iloat; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 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 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant asserts that the Ad Hoc Panel failed to give reasons for its opinion because it did not give a reasoned reply to his assertion that it had been improperly constituted. The argument is ill conceived. The obligation of a disciplinary body to give reasons for its opinions is limited to the disciplinary matters remitted to it. The reason is so that the person subjected to a disciplinary measure may know why a penalty is being imposed upon him and may, if he thinks appropriate, appeal against the decision. But an administrative body, such as the Ad Hoc Panel, has no power and hence no obligation to decide in any definitive way upon its own remit. Of course, it must listen attentively to any objections that are made to the effect that it is exceeding or is about to exceed its powers and must take a position on such objections by either continuing to act or changing its course of action. But in the final analysis, the decision as to whether such a body is acting within its powers or beyond them must lie elsewhere and a person in the complainant's position suffers no prejudice from its failure to give reasons for declining to accede to his objections."
Keywords:
abuse of power; advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; misconduct; misuse of authority; purpose; report;
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 1838
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
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 1618
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The purpose of the rule in Article 38 of the Service Regulations is such that "the need for further consultation would be understandable if the proposals had been so radically amended as to be really new ones."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 38 OF EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; interpretation; purpose; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
