|
|
 |
|
|
Independence (194, 195, 196,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Independence
Total judgments found: 33
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In light of the […] Staff Regulations and Rules, and the Standards of Conduct, international civil servants must be impartial and independent from national States, and cannot engage in outside activities which can undermine their independence and their impartiality. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers, including international civil servants, should enjoy (see Judgment 4551, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). International civil servants have the right to join trade unions without seeking prior authorization from their employer.
In addition, the private activities of WIPO’s staff members are respected to the extent that the Staff Regulations and Rules allow staff to engage in “specific outside activities” which are defined as “private non-remunerated activities for social, artistic, religious, or charitable purposes which have no relation to the staff member’s official functions or to the Organization”, with no need for prior authorization. However, in order to join other kinds of private associations included in the definition of “outside activities”, WIPO’s staff members need to seek the prior authorization of their employer, aimed at assessing that the purposes of the private associations are not in conflict with the staff members’ duty to be impartial and independent. Having regard to the statutory purposes of the AIP, this Association cannot be included in the definition of “Specific outside activities – Social, artistic, religious or charitable activities” provided for by paragraph 15 of Office Instruction No. 1/2018. Nor can it be characterized as a trade union or staff association. Although Article 1 of its Statute states that AIP is a “non-profit association” and that “[i]t is politically neutral”, these statements are contradicted by Article 3 of the Statute. The purposes illustrated in Article 3 concern the interests of India and Indian nationals, and are political in nature, as they refer, inter alia, to improving relations between India, Switzerland, and the respective international and non-governmental organizations of the members of AIP, and contributing to India’s developmental goals and aspirations. Therefore, the complainant could not have engaged in the AIP at his own discretion without requesting prior authorization from his employer.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the impugned decision and the disciplinary decision are free from flaws with regard to the first, second and fourth counts of the first charge letter. They correctly considered that the AIP’s objectives are inconsistent with a WIPO staff member’s duty of impartiality and independence, and that, accordingly, the complainant engaged in an outside activity in contrast with his duties without even trying to seek prior authorization. In addition, the disciplinary decision provided persuasive evidence of the complainant’s “instrumental contribution in forming and operationalizing the AIP” […]
As to the complainant’s contention that the AIP’s aim to contribute to the development of India was never pursued and was only one among many other aims that were ignored by the Organization, the Tribunal reiterates that the AIP’s Statute is unequivocal in stating political objectives in the interest of India. Accordingly, it is immaterial whether the complainant actually took action to reach the statutory objective. It is also immaterial to consider the many purposes of the AIP, because those that were taken into account by WIPO are inconsistent with the duties of an international civil servant.
Moreover, the mere fact that the complainant had a significant role in forming and operationalizing the AIP, as described in the first charge letter, amounts to evidence of the charge that he made the interests of the AIP prevail over those of the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4551
Keywords:
freedom of association; impartiality; independence; outside activity; staff union;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is useful to recall that according to the Tribunal’s case law, where such staff rules are established, the persons subject to an investigation carried out by an international organization have a duty to cooperate with the investigation and may be sanctioned if they fail to do so (see Judgment 4858, consideration 25). The complainant himself acknowledges that he did not answer questions that he perceived as “an unwarranted intrusion and an unacceptable investigation in the internal affairs of an independent and ‘sovereign’ organization”. By doing so, the complainant violated not only his duty to cooperate with the investigation but also his duty to put the interests of the Organization before his own private interests. In his capacity as an international civil servant, he was not allowed to invoke a duty of confidentiality towards the AIP to refuse to respond to the questions of the IOD. In so doing, he violated his duty of independence and impartiality. In conclusion, the allegations challenging the third charge of the first letter of charges are unfounded and are rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
confidentiality; impartiality; independence;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues, in the first place, that the procedure leading to the adoption of Communiqué 2/17 was flawed because it was not submitted to the General Consultative Committee (GCC) [for consultation].
[...]
Article 1(4) of the Service Regulations provides that the regulations are to apply to members of the Boards of Appeal “in so far as they are not prejudicial to their independence”. The appraisal of members of those Boards is one of the particular problems associated with the guarantees of independence from which those members benefit. In addition, relating more generally to measures that specifically deal with the conditions of employment of members of the Boards of Appeal, it is apparent from the file [...] that, in view of this requirement for independence, it was increasingly seen as inappropriate for such measures to be subject to consultation with the GCC, especially given that that body is chaired by the President of the Office and half of its members are appointed by him. As a consequence, it became the practice, for measures of this type, to replace consultation with the GCC by consultation with the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal, an autonomous authority provided for in Rule 12b of the Implementing Regulations to the Convention, whose role, under paragraph 3 of that rule, includes “advis[ing] the President of the Boards of Appeal on matters concerning the functioning of the Boards of Appeal Unit in general” [...]. This practice was eventually codified in 2019 by the insertion of paragraph 8 into Article 38 of the Service Regulations, which expressly provides for consultation with the Presidium in such a situation rather than with the GCC.
This is the procedure that was followed for the drafting of Communiqué 2/17. Admittedly, the new version of Article 38 was not in force at that time. However, as just explained, even before the amendment was made to the Service Regulations, a practice existed to that effect and, contrary to what the complainant maintains, was already in use at the time when the Communiqué was issued, as evidenced by examples supplied by the EPO of previous consultations on other matters. Furthermore, although it is well-established case law that a practice cannot become legally binding where it contravenes rules already in force (see, for example, Judgments 4555, consideration 11, and 4026, consideration 6), the Tribunal considers that, in view of the aforementioned wording of Article 1(4) of the Service Regulations, the practice in question cannot be regarded as contravening the applicable rules. The lack of consultation with the GCC did not, therefore, constitute an irregularity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4026, 4555
Keywords:
consultation; independence; interpretation of rules; practice; rating;
Judgment 3514
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was an Ombudsman contact person, contests the attitude of the President who, he considers, interfered with the Ombudsman's independence.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; independence; intervention; ombudsman;
Judgment 3369
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the application of deductions to her dependant’s allowance for participation in a strike and the amount deducted from most elements of her remuneration.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he complainant is manifestly misguided in her belief that she can accuse the members appointed by the Staff Committee of failing to defend her during her hearing before the Committee, since those members, who are required just like other Committee members to execute their duties in a fully independent manner, cannot be expected to perform such a role."
Keywords:
independence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3359
118th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, former judges of the ICC, impugn the implied decision of the Assembly of States Parties not to determine to which Pension Scheme they were subjected.
Consideration 29
Extract:
"As the complainants point out in their pleas, fundamental protections of the type in Article 49 are a common feature in many democracies with independent judiciaries. They exist to preserve and protect the independence of the judiciary, they do not exist to benefit individual judges, notwithstanding that they have this effect."
Keywords:
independence;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Absolute privilege also operates to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. A tribunal would not be independent and impartial, nor seen to be so, if it were to assume the role of dictating to the parties the evidence and arguments that they can advance in their cases. That is not to say that a tribunal cannot control its own proceedings by, for example, excluding irrelevant evidence or striking out scandalous pleadings. Nor does it mean that a tribunal cannot draw inferences by reason of the nature of the evidence or argument presented, including in appropriate cases, adverse inferences as to the motive of the party relying on that evidence or argument. But if the evidence or argument is relevant to the issues to be decided, it is for the parties alone to determine whether they will rely on it. And because the parties must have that freedom or privilege, a tribunal cannot apply sanctions in separate proceedings with respect to the evidence or arguments advanced, particularly not after the proceedings have been completed. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality to litigation."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; evidence; independence; judicial review; submissions;
Judgment 2900
108th Session, 2010
European Telecommunications Satellite Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is [...] for the Tribunal to determine whether it is competent to hear a dispute, and the Tribunal is by no means bound in this respect by the opinions expressed by the parties in the course of the proceedings."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; independence; procedure before the tribunal;
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 2537
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
One of the two members of the Medical Committee convened to examine the complainant's work capacity attached a handwritten statement to the report that an occupational origin of the invalidity could not be excluded. The Tribunal rules that "it was certainly not appropriate for members of the Office's Administration - faced with a clearly contradictory medical report - to approach the second expert in order to persuade him to withdraw his diverging opinion."
Keywords:
discontinuance; independence; invalidity; medical board; medical opinion; service-incurred;
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 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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;
Judgment 2083
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant suffered from retinal detachments and a detachment of the vitreous. The organization recognised her eye condition as service incurred. In "September 1998 [...] the [organization] decide[d] to stop reimbursing the bills [she submitted] on [the] grounds [...] that curing her retinal detachments was no longer the object of the treatment. However, it did not show that the service-incurred injuries were not a "direct and principal" cause of the treatment [... ] The Tribunal takes the view that although, as the organization says, the decision to stop reimbursing the bills was at the discretion of the Director-General, it could not be taken without an independent expert medical opinion obtained through a process which provides all the safeguards of transparency and impartiality." The case is therefore sent back to the organization.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; discretion; due process; executive head; expert inquiry; grounds; illness; independence; lack of evidence; medical expenses; medical opinion; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; professional accident; refund; refusal; safeguard; service-incurred;
Judgment 2032
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Exemption from national taxes is an essential condition of employment in the international civil service and is an important guarantee of independence and objectivity. It cannot be made to depend upon the whim of national taxing authorities [...]."
Keywords:
independence; member state; official; privileges and immunities; safeguard; salary; tax;
Judgment 1821
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"All comments and statements by member states were made within the context of the proper decision-making organs of the [organisation's] structure. To the extent that the complainants are attempting to show that member states tried to influence the decision through the committees or the governing body to which they belonged, it was perfectly proper for them to do so. An international organisation would not exist without its member states and the proper means for them to exert influence over an organisation they create is precisely that of debate, discussion and persuasion within the committees and governing body of the organisation itself."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive body; independence; legislative body; member state;
Judgment 1791
86th Session, 1999
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"In support of their plea of abuse of authority the complainants accuse [the Organization] of scorning [...] the independence of the international civil service by giving in to a single government that was itself defying the principle [...]. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that [the Organization] was yielding to [the] insistence [of one State]. The impugned decision was taken because of a resolution by the Council, the sovereign body that decides things scientific, technical and administrative [...]."
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; discretion; executive body; general principle; independence; international civil service principles; member state; misuse of authority; official;
Judgment 1733
84th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The authorities of the complainant's home country, who were asked to give an opinion about giving him a promotion, declined their support for him but gave no reasons. If the country "had given a reason the Director General would have had to consider whether it was sound or not and whether refusing him the appointment was in the Agency's best interests. since it offered none, he had no basis on which to exercise his discretion. The complainant was fully qualified for promotion; his abilities were well known to the Agency and appreciated. The paramount consideration mentioned in Article VII.d [of the IAEA Staff Regulations] was heeded, namely seeking staff of the highest standards of efficiency, technical competence and integrity. The reason stated by the Agency for refusing him the appointment which he would otherwise have been granted is therefore untenable and acting from that reason amounted to a mistake in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VII.D OF THE IAEA STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
discretion; independence; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; promotion; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"In the performance of their duties the Director General and staff may not seek or receive instructions from any source external to the Agency. For the Director General to allow a member State a veto on the appointment of a staff member is to 'receive instructions' from an external source and an interference with the paramount consideration of securing staff of the right calibre. Paragraph 68 of the Administrative Manual and the sentence 'accordingly government sponsorship will be required' [...] are null and void as being contrary to [...] the Statute."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 68 OF THE IAEA MANUAL
Keywords:
appointment; independence; member state; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1730
84th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Like any other organisation in the United Nations system, the FAO has a duty to ensure that its staff attain the highest standards of efficiency and technical competence. The arrangements made with the Chinese government up to 1992 prevented the Organization from exercising its own discretion about the level of competence of Chinese recruits. The fact that the arrangements have ceased is to be welcomed and any surviving anomalies should be corrected, not perpetuated."
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; flaw; independence; organisation; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1475
80th Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"It is inadmissible that a staff member should involve government officials in questioning the organization's internal workings."
Keywords:
conduct; independence; organisation; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1456
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"No doubt national institutions that run pension schemes are better able to evaluate entitlements that may have accrued to the employee under one or more national schemes before recruitment [...]". No doubt the national institution has the last word on the figure to be used. But the organisation remains "free by virtue of its administrative and financial autonomy to discard any figure that the institution has worked out on some basis that offends against the prescriptions of the international regulations. It is free, too, to ask the institution to work out a new figure in the event of disagreement."
Keywords:
domestic law; independence; international civil service principles; organisation; pension; pension adjustment system; pension entitlements;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
