|
|
 |
|
|
Patere legem (209,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Patere legem
Total judgments found: 90
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 5155
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to select her for the position of Head of the WHO Office in Dakar, Senegal.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]nyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be. The case law also states that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith. As the selection of candidates is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process, a complainant must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate. However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must comply with the relevant rules and the Tribunal’s case law. The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand (see also Judgments 4589, consideration 4, 4467, consideration 2 […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4467, 4589
Keywords:
competition; good faith; open competition; patere legem; selection procedure;
Judgment 5122
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[T]here was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon the complainant. Notably, Rule 10.2.03 of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, then in force, under the heading “Due process”, stated, in effect, that no disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a staff member unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as the right to seek assistance in his or her defence, as well as be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the Director-General issued the disciplinary measures against the complainant in the letter of 7 February 2020 to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report, as was required by paragraph 1.18 of Part IX of the Policy on Confidentiality. The complainant’s right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was thereby violated.
Keywords:
disciplinary charges; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; legal assistance; notification of allegations; patere legem; right; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The violation of the complainant’s due process in the disciplinary process was a manifest error, which permits the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision, as well as the initial decision contained in the letter of 7 February 2020, without it being necessary to rule on any other plea the complainant proffers. Inasmuch as the complainant’s rights to due process were violated, he is entitled to moral damages. For this, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will award him 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; judicial review; manifest error; moral damages; patere legem; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5118
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close her harassment complaint without carrying out an investigation following a preliminary review.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4516, the Tribunal held that in a situation like the instant one, there was a clear obligation on the part of ITU to open an investigation pursuant to the terms of Service Order No. 19/08. In considerations 7 and 8 of that judgment, the Tribunal found that paragraph 15 of Service Order No. 19/08, mandated the Secretary-General to order the conduct of an investigation by an investigator or investigators specified in the paragraph, within three weeks of receiving a complaint in writing. The Tribunal added that ITU could not ignore its own clear rule, and it remitted the case to the organization in order that the complainant’s harassment complaint be so investigated. These conclusions were reaffirmed in Judgment 4578 (see consideration 5 of that judgment).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4516, 4578
Keywords:
organisation's duties; patere legem;
Judgment 5113
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
“[I]n terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. […] ‘[…] ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’” […] in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.”
The Tribunal finds that the organisation breached its duty of care in its treatment of the complainant. […]
There is no evidence that the concerns regarding the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention at any time prior to […], when the completed PAR was forwarded to him. The decision not to renew his appointment was taken just three weeks later. As a result, he was not afforded an opportunity to address or rectify the alleged shortcomings in his performance, nor was he granted a reasonable period within which any improvement could have been expected to occur.”
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“The complainant is entitled to moral damages, as the flaws in the appraisal process referred to earlier constitute a breach of the principle prohibiting an organisation from breaching the rules which it has itself established as well as the organisation’s duty of care, which the Tribunal assesses at 5,000 euros.”
Keywords:
duty of care; moral damages; patere legem;
Judgment 5005
140th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply only a partial adjustment to his salary in relation to inflation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organizations to set adjustments in staff pay have been clearly established in the Tribunal’s case law [...].
Under the terms of consideration 7 of Judgment 1821 – which are reproduced in the various other precedents cited above – those principles may be concisely stated as follows:
“(a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...].
(b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are ‘stable, foreseeable and clearly understood’ [...].
(c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...].
(d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff’s expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; coordinated organisations; discretion; duty to inform; methodology; organisation's duties; patere legem; reckoning; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 4994
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was called to give evidence as part of an investigation into allegations of harassment, challenges the refusal to allow him to be accompanied by a colleague at his interview.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Le document en question [qui donnait une interprétation des dispositions applicables en matière d’assistance des témoins dans les enquêtes pour harcèlement différant manifestement de leur teneur même] qui n’a pas été élaboré dans les formes prescrites pour l’édiction d’un acte réglementaire et n’a, au surplus, pas fait l’objet d’une publication régulière, ne saurait en effet se voir reconnaître une quelconque valeur normative (voir, sur ces points, les jugements 4254, au considérant 4, 3907, au considérant 26, ou 3835, au considérant 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3835, 3907, 4254
Keywords:
binding character; patere legem; publication;
Judgment 4930
139th Session, 2025
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
A comparison between the impugned decision and the opinion of the Appeal Board demonstrates that the Appeal Board found a breach of sections 7.1.1(a) and 7.3 of Service Order 18/06. It is useful to recall that section 7.1.1(a) sets forth, for staff members starting on new functions (including newly recruited staff) in January, February, and March, that they will have up to three months to prepare and follow up on the approval process of their workplan and that they will join the regular cycle – i.e., they will have their mid-term review in June-July and evaluation in November-January. In the present case, the complainant was provided with the workplan only in July 2020 and, thus, the Appeal Board found that section 7.1.1(a) was breached and that the complainant was not granted enough time to improve. The Secretary-General stated, in this respect, that the breaches found by the Appeal Board concerned “certain formal requirements”, but it did not explain why “formal requirements” could be disregarded and why their breach did not warrant the annulment of the flawed decision. On the contrary, it is firm case law that the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, prohibits an organization from breaching the rules which it has itself established (see Judgments 4840, consideration 10, and 4796, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4796, 4840
Keywords:
patere legem;
Judgment 4905
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to set the rate of deterioration of physical health resulting from an occupational accident at only 15 per cent and, consequently, to award him the sum of 11,874.60 Swiss francs as an indemnity for deterioration of physical health.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; patere legem; professional accident;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
“However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules [...].’”
This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 18
Extract:
[I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.
Keywords:
breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 29
Extract:
Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
“Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 20
Extract:
[A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.
Keywords:
breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Considerations 23-24
Extract:
[T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
“As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that it is clear from these provisions, which are peculiar to Eurocontrol’s Staff Regulations, that officials of the Organisation are entitled to a due process which affords them the opportunity to be fully heard in connection with the misconduct of which they are accused and to a genuine opportunity to express themselves on the “penalty envisaged” in terms both of its content and of its proportionality to the facts complained of.
In the present case, bearing in mind that the Director General had the ability to apply a large range of disciplinary measures which had to be commensurate with the facts complained of and which had potentially significant consequences for the complainant depending on the severity of the penalty decided upon, the Tribunal considers that the provisions required the complainant to be given the opportunity to make observations on the penalty envisaged by the Director General before that penalty was imposed.
[...]
The Tribunal considers that the Organisation therefore breached its own disciplinary rules and substantially undermined the complainant’s right to be heard under the Staff Regulations in order to put forward his comments on the penalty envisaged against him. This breach of the rules was all the more serious that the penalty in question was significant and had severe consequences for the complainant, as downgrading by two grades brought with it an immediate and permanent reduction by almost 20 per cent of the amount of his pension.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; patere legem; right to be heard;
Judgment 4695
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring him to reimburse the undue payments of salary he received during absences that were declared to be unjustified by the Administration.
Considerations 16-18
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the Organisation is mistaken in maintaining that it never sought to apply that provision of the Staff Regulations on the facts, since that was the only provision of the Staff Regulations that could apply to this situation. [...]
It is clear from these assertions that the Administration knew that it was following a procedure which did not exist anywhere in the Organisation’s rules and which it was, therefore, unable to impose on an official without first informing him of the relevant parameters, where applicable. The Tribunal considers that Eurocontrol cannot justify its conduct, as it attempts to do in its submissions, by arguing that what occurred was ultimately done for the benefit of the complainant since “a strict application by [the Organisation] would have had harsher consequences for [him]”, which, in any event, has not been established.
Since the Organisation breached its own rules by ignoring the procedure laid down in Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations before concluding that the complainant’s absences due to sickness during the period concerned were unjustified, this second plea is also well founded and renders both the impugned decision and the decision of 26 November 2019 legally flawed.
Keywords:
patere legem;
Judgment 4592
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of the amounts transferred into the Eurocontrol scheme in respect of his previously-acquired pension rights and seeks compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered as a result of alleged negligence on the part of the Organisation.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[A]ccording to the settled case law of the Tribunal, where the rules applicable to an organisation provide for an internal procedure, that organisation is required to observe and apply those rules under the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see Judgments 4506, consideration 5, and 4310, consideration 9). Given that, in the aforementioned Office Notice No. 06/11, Eurocontrol specifically provides that the Joint Committee for Disputes is tasked with giving advisory opinions on complaints made pursuant to Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations, and that, before taking a decision to reject even a part of such a complaint, the Director General must seek the opinion of that committee, Eurocontrol could not, as it in fact did, reject the complainant’s complaints without first receiving that opinion, which, moreover, it had undertaken to obtain in the present case.
By acting as it did, Eurocontrol effectively decided to make its own finding, without the benefit of such an opinion, that the complainant’s complaint was unfounded and void because of what he had signed on 8 January 2019 and because he had not challenged the final decision of 14 January 2019. The Head of Human Resources thereby disregarded an essential safeguard in the right to an internal appeal, from which all officials of the Organisation are entitled to benefit (see Judgment 4167, under 3), thus rendering the impugned decision unlawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4310, 4506
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; patere legem;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeal; patere legem; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 4540
134th Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he failure to give the complainant a written warning and a reasonable time to improve was an important factor to be considered in determining what was an appropriate measure having regard to her conduct, even as determined by the Director in the impugned decision. Indeed, having regard to the terms of Staff Rule 1070.2, no decision to dismiss should have been made in the absence of a warning and providing a reasonable time to improve. The measure of dismissal under Staff Rule 1070 was unlawful. Accordingly, the impugned decision should be set aside.
Keywords:
due process; patere legem; termination of employment; warning;
Judgment 4524
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t is recalled that according to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal’s censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body’s alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgment 3073, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3073
Keywords:
criteria; patere legem; qualifications; selection procedure;
Judgment 4519
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The wording of Staff Rule 10.1.3(a) makes plain that the suspension provided for under Staff Rule 10.1.3 is intended as a measure that may be taken “pending an investigation” and that the staff member concerned may thus be suspended – whether with or without pay – only until its end. As the Tribunal has already held concerning the application of similarly worded staff rules in another organisation, such a reference to the possibility of suspending a staff member until the end of the investigation into the actions of which she or he is suspected cannot be interpreted as authorising an extension of that suspension beyond the end of the investigation in question and, in particular, during any disciplinary proceedings subsequently brought against the staff member concerned (see Judgment 3880, consideration 20).
Contrary to what the Organisation submits, this approach does not contradict that adopted in previous cases concerning ITU. Although in Judgment 3138 the Tribunal accepted the lawfulness of a suspension ordered after the delivery of the report into the investigation of the acts of which the complainant was accused in that case, it did so on the ground, set out in consideration 11 of that judgment, that an “additional investigation” was planned when the decision was taken. Nor is Judgment 2601, also quoted by ITU, relevant since it concerned a challenge to decisions taken at the end of a disciplinary procedure and, as pointed out in consideration 13 thereof, did not call into question the lawfulness of the prior suspension. Finally, although ITU also refers to Judgment 3502, concerning another organisation where the suspension of staff members is governed by similar provisions, the Tribunal observes that the suspension at issue in that judgment was ordered pending the outcome of an investigation and that, although the suspension was extended until the end of the subsequent disciplinary procedure, the plea was not framed in the same way in the other case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2601, 3138, 3880
Keywords:
inquiry; patere legem; suspension;
Judgment 4516
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; harassment; investigation; patere legem;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[P]aragraph 15 [of Service Order No. 19/08] contains the word “must”. Often provisions conferring a power use the word “must” or “shall” or, alternatively, “may”. Ordinarily the word “must” is, in such a context, construed as imposing a duty on the repository of the power to exercise the power. Ordinarily the word “may” is construed as creating a discretion in the repository of the power whether to exercise the power. Occasionally, the context in which either word is used might result in a construction of the provision conferring the power which is at odds with its ordinary meaning.
In the present case, the context in which the word “must” is used is consistent with its ordinary meaning.
Keywords:
interpretation; patere legem;
Judgment 4515
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the conversion of his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for harassment undertaken against him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; patere legem; suspension without pay;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The suspension provided for under Staff Rule 10.1.3a) is intended to be a measure that may be taken “pending [the outcome of the] investigation” and a staff member subject to it may thus be suspended – whether with or without pay – only until the investigation is completed. As the Tribunal has already had the occasion to hold in relation to the application of similarly worded regulations of another organisation, such a reference to the possibility of suspending an official until the end of the investigation into the facts of which she or he is suspected cannot be interpreted as authorising an extension of that suspension beyond the end of the investigation in question and, in particular, during any disciplinary proceedings subsequently instituted against the official concerned (see Judgment 3880, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3880
Keywords:
investigation; patere legem; suspension;
Judgment 4506
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the length of the extension of appointment that was offered to him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law states that, as long as the rules are neither amended nor repealed, the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti requires the Organization to apply them (see Judgment 4310, consideration 9).
[A]n 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 (see Judgment 3758, consideration 15). As to the interpretation of that Regulation, in its relevant version, it must be recalled that according to the Tribunal’s case law the primary rule of interpretation is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgment 1222, consideration 4; see also Judgment 4321, consideration 4). Where the text is clear and unambiguous (as it is in the present case), the Tribunal will apply it without reference to the preparatory work or the supposed intent of the lawmaker. Strict textual interpretation is an essential safeguard of the stability of the position in law and so of the Organisation’s efficiency (see Judgment 691, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 691, 1222, 3758, 4310, 4321
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; patere legem;
Judgment 4481
133rd Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her appointment at the end of her period of probation.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law […] requires an international organization to comply with its own procedures that govern performance appraisals. Accordingly, the following was stated in Judgment 2414, consideration 24:
“The fundamental considerations which lead to the conclusion that an organisation must comply with the rules which it has established also dictate the conclusion that it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance. Just as the decisions to withhold the complainant’s salary increments could not be justified on the basis of her unsatisfactory performance because the relevant rules had not been complied with, so also, for the same reason, the decisions neither to convert nor renew her contract cannot be justified on that basis.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414
Keywords:
patere legem; performance evaluation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
