Transfer (255, 256, 257,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Transfer
Total judgments found: 155
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5061
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting in his capacity as a staff representative at the material time, challenges the decision to transfer Mr L. to a post of Director.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; locus standi; staff representative; transfer;
Judgment 5054
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de le réaffecter dans un bureau hors Siège de l’Organisation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Le Tribunal relève que, dans son jugement 4609 qui concernait également l’UNESCO et se fondait sur le paragraphe 7 du point 5.10 du Manuel RH, devenu aujourd’hui le paragraphe 8 du point 5.9, il a rappelé sa jurisprudence selon laquelle l’absence de consultation préalable du fonctionnaire concerné sur les caractéristiques du poste, et en particulier les attributions qui lui seraient confiées dans son nouveau poste, constituait un vice de forme substantiel au regard de la procédure applicable (voir le jugement 4609, au considérant 6). Le Tribunal a déduit de ce principe que tout fonctionnaire concerné, même s’il a été averti d’une éventuelle future mutation, doit être préalablement informé des caractéristiques du poste qu’il est envisagé de lui confier et, en particulier, des attributions afférentes à celui-ci, et ce, afin de lui permettre d’exprimer également ses réactions à ce sujet (ibidem, au considérant 8, et la jurisprudence citée).
Or, en l’espèce, […] l’intéressé n’a jamais été consulté préalablement à la décision de le muter au Bureau régional de Kingston pour une durée initiale de deux ans. Le requérant n’a en effet été informé de cette décision que le 6 janvier 2020, à savoir lors de la notification de celle-ci, et la lettre de mission ne lui a été remise que le même jour, également sans consultation préalable à son sujet.
La circonstance que le requérant n’ait pas répondu à l’invitation qui lui avait été adressée d’indiquer préalablement son choix pour au moins trois des postes qui figuraient dans la liste des postes à pourvoir dans le cadre de l’exercice de mobilité géographique pour l’année 2019 ne permettait pas à l’Organisation de se dispenser de son obligation de consultation préalable en vue de la mutation de l’intéressé à Kingston.
Il en va de même de la circonstance que le requérant avait bien été préalablement consulté en vue de le charger d’exécuter une mission temporaire de trois mois auprès du même Bureau régional de Kingston. Une telle mission temporaire était en effet d’une tout autre nature qu’une affectation pour une durée de deux ans dans un poste, dont, au demeurant, les attributions n’étaient pas les mêmes.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4609
Keywords:
consultation; transfer;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Les vices constatés aux considérants 5 à 12 ci-dessus, qui relèvent du contrôle restreint exercé par le Tribunal en la matière, suffisent à justifier la censure de la décision de réaffecter le requérant au Bureau régional de Kingston.
Il en résulte que la décision attaquée du 7 août 2023 ainsi que la décision du 6 janvier 2020 doivent être annulées.
Keywords:
decision quashed; judicial review; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; consultation; time limit; transfer;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[L]a mutation d’un fonctionnaire international relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de l’organisation concernée et ne peut faire l’objet, pour cette raison, que d’un contrôle restreint. Elle n’est ainsi susceptible d’être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, est entachée d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte de faits essentiels, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées ou procède d’un détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4609, au considérant 4, 4451, au considérant 6, 3488, au considérant 3, 2635, au considérant 5, 1556, au considérant 5, et 883, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883, 1556, 2635, 3488, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; transfer;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
Dans son jugement 4609 [...], le Tribunal a rappelé sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle une organisation internationale est tenue, lorsqu’elle entend procéder à la mutation d’un fonctionnaire, de prévoir que la mise en application de cette mesure soit précédée d’un délai suffisant pour permettre à celui-ci de prendre les dispositions nécessaires en vue de son changement d’affectation (considérant 6). Dans ce même jugement, le Tribunal a ainsi considéré que le délai de onze jours dont disposait la fonctionnaire dans le cas d’espèce pour prendre ses nouvelles fonctions au Siège ne satisfaisait manifestement pas à cette exigence, eu égard notamment au fait que le transfert en cause impliquait matériellement un déménagement de Kinshasa à Paris (considérant 10).
Dans le présent cas d’espèce, le Tribunal constate que le délai imparti au requérant pour prendre ses fonctions de coordinateur principal à Kingston était de 14 jours. Un tel délai apparaît déraisonnable, compte tenu notamment du fait que la mutation en cause impliquait matériellement un déménagement de Paris à Kingston.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4609
Keywords:
time limit; transfer;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal relève que le requérant reste en défaut d’expliciter dans sa requête l’existence du préjudice moral qu’il prétend avoir subi du seul fait de la décision de le réaffecter au Bureau de Kingston. Dans les circonstances très particulières de l’espèce, où la réaffectation en question n’a jamais connu de matérialisation effective et où, de surcroît, le requérant a fait preuve d’un comportement manifestement peu coopératif à l’égard de l’Organisation, le Tribunal considère que la simple constatation de l’illégalité de la décision attaquée suffit à réparer l’éventuel préjudice moral qu’aurait subi l’intéressé du fait de cette décision.
Il n’y a donc pas lieu de lui accorder de dommages-intérêts à ce titre.
Keywords:
compensation; decision quashed; moral injury; transfer;
Judgment 5053
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de le réaffecter à un bureau hors Siège de l’Organisation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[U]ne décision portant, comme c’est le cas en l’espèce, mutation d’un fonctionnaire international relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de l’organisation concernée et ne peut faire l’objet, pour cette raison, que d’un contrôle restreint. Elle n’est ainsi susceptible d’être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, est entachée d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte de faits essentiels, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées ou procède d’un détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4609, au considérant 4, 4451, au considérant 6, 3488, au considérant 3, 2635, au considérant 5, 1556, au considérant 5, et 883, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883, 1556, 2635, 3488, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; judicial review; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; transfer;
Judgment 5052
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de rejeter sa demande de report de sa réaffectation dans le cadre de l’exercice de mobilité géographique encadré de 2019.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Il est de jurisprudence constante que le chef exécutif d’une organisation internationale dispose, en règle générale, d’un large pouvoir d’appréciation lorsqu’il s’agit de procéder, dans l’intérêt de l’organisation, à l’affectation des membres de son personnel (voir, notamment, les jugements 4609, au considérant 4, et 4599, au considérant 19).
S’il est établi qu’au moment d’exercer son pouvoir d’appréciation en matière de transfert, le chef exécutif d’une organisation internationale ou l’autorité compétente à cet effet doit tenir compte à la fois des intérêts de celle-ci et des capacités et intérêts du fonctionnaire concerné lorsqu’ils sont contradictoires, il ou elle peut néanmoins accorder plus de poids aux intérêts de l’organisation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 2635, au considérant 6, et 325).
Du reste, celui qui accepte de devenir fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale qui a des lieux d’activité dans plusieurs endroits dans le monde, comme c’est le cas de l’UNESCO, doit naturellement compter avec la possibilité d’une affectation à un autre lieu de travail, ce que rappelle par ailleurs de manière expresse l’article 1.2 du Statut du personnel précité (comparer, à titre d’exemples, avec les jugements 1757, au considérant 15, et 1055, aux considérants 6 et 7). À cet égard, et comme l’a également rappelé le Tribunal, la question de l’éducation des enfants ne constitue pas, en soi, un obstacle insurmontable à une mutation d’un fonctionnaire international, pour autant que des aménagements raisonnables prennent en compte la situation familiale et les intérêts personnels du fonctionnaire concerné (voir, à ce sujet, le jugement 1250, au considérant 14) et le consentement exprès de l’intéressé n’est pas non plus requis (voir, à cet égard, le jugement 3581, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325, 1055, 1250, 1757, 2635, 3581, 4599, 4609
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; transfer;
Judgment 5015
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request for additional medical leave days or compensation, her request for a similar position within another unit, and her request to adjust her position title.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As consistently recognized by the Tribunal, internal assignments fall within managerial discretion of an executive head of an international organization, and it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests (see, for example, Judgment 4345, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4345
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; sick leave; title of post; transfer;
Judgment 5014
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request to be reassigned to a different team, and consequently to a different reporting line, as well as her request for a new assessment of her position.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s transfer was clearly within the executive head’s managerial discretion. The transfer did not affect her legal status, grade, or tasks, which remained consistent with her qualifications and prior responsibilities. The Tribunal notes that oral explanations about the justification of her transfer were provided to the complainant, and she was also provided with an adequate opportunity to comment, as required by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 4830, consideration 15, regarding the need of consultation prior to a transfer decision, and Judgment 4084, consideration 13, regarding the interest of the Organization justifying the transfer decision). As affirmed in Judgment 3734, consideration 5, for a practice to be binding, it must be consistent, longstanding, and widely recognized. Such conditions are not satisfied in this case. The complainant’s personal conflicts with new reporting lines do not constitute a legal basis for the Tribunal to interfere, as the Tribunal may only do so on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires, shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3488, 3734, 4084, 4599, 4830
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; role of the tribunal; transfer;
Judgment 5010
140th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was transferred to WIPO from another organization, challenges the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of only one year and not to grant her a continuing appointment similar to that which she held prior to her transfer.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duration of appointment; inter-agency agreement; transfer;
Judgment 5002
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following her refusal to accept two reassignment proposals.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reassignment; refusal; termination of employment; transfer;
Judgment 5001
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her in the context of the 2019 Mobility Exercise.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complainant challenges a reassignment decision, the Tribunal recalls its case law which recognizes the wide discretion of an executive head of an international organization to reassign staff in the interest of the organization. So far as concerns UNAIDS, the discretion is enshrined in Article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations, which states that all staff members are subject to the authority of the executive head of the organization and to assignment by her or him to any of the activities or offices of the organization. The Tribunal has therefore stated that it may interfere with a decision to reassign a staff member only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal has however emphasised that the organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level of responsibilities as she or he performed in the previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see Judgment 4599, consideration 19). The Tribunal has also stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 4595, for example, that an international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed. It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed. The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury. While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4595, 4599
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; reassignment; role of the tribunal; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s assertion that the former Executive Director and members of the [mobility committee] were well aware that she could not accept the reassignment on account of her spouse’s precarious employment situation, viewed in the context of the purpose of the Mobility Exercise and the interest of the Organization, advances her case no further.
Keywords:
interest of the service; refusal; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 4852
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment, by lateral transfer, of another official to the position of Director, FAO Liaison Office in Geneva.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t cannot be assumed that one member of staff has an unfettered right to challenge the transfer of another member of staff (see Judgment 2670, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2670
Keywords:
appointment without competition; cause of action; transfer;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he organisation insists on the fact that the complainant was informed in advance of the reasons for his transfer, as is required by the case law (see, for example, Judgment 4690, consideration 6) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4690
Keywords:
duty to inform; motivation; transfer;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he complainant is justified in maintaining that the unlawfulness of the contested transfer decision caused him a certain moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the responsibilities involved in the new duties he was to assume were such as to cause him anxiety and stress and adversely affected his rights, which is characteristic of that form of injury. The Tribunal considers that this injury will be fairly redressed by awarding him damages in the amount of 7,000 euros.
Keywords:
moral injury; transfer;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that it is well established in its case law that a decision to transfer an employee of an international organisation, which, as with any appointment decision, lies within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation concerned, is, for that reason, subject to only limited review. Therefore, such a decision may be set aside only if it was taken ultra vires, if it shows formal or procedural flaws or a mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4609, consideration 4, 4451, consideration 6, 3488, consideration 3, 2635, consideration 5, 1556, consideration 5, or 883, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883, 1556, 2635, 3488, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
judicial review; transfer;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example, Judgments 4609, consideration 8, 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, or 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
consultation; duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; promotion; receivability of the complaint; special post allowance; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the complainant does not seek compensation for the material injury he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawfulness of the transfer decision [...]. Even if the complainant had made such a request, it would not, in any event, be appropriate to grant it, since the file shows that he received for that post a [special post allowance], retroactive to the date on which his transfer took effect.
Keywords:
material injury; special post allowance; transfer;
Judgment 4773
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official by lateral transfer.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment without competition; complaint dismissed; transfer;
Judgment 4771
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official by lateral transfer.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment without competition; complaint dismissed; transfer;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reorganisation; transfer;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In respect of staff transfers, the Tribunal stated the following in Judgment 4687, consideration 5, which refers to Judgments 4595, consideration 2, and 4427, consideration 2:
“Consistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules, and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; whether it rests upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own.”
Among the complainant’s various pleas against the contested transfer decision, there is one which falls within the limited scope of the Tribunal’s power of review thus defined, since it relates to a breach of procedural rules, and is decisive for the outcome of this dispute. This plea concerns a breach of the complainant’s right to be heard before the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4427, 4595, 4687
Keywords:
judicial review; transfer;
Consideration 13
Extract:
In Judgment 4609, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that its case law “requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties [...] (see, for example, Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7)”. Similarly, in Judgment 4399, consideration 9, the Tribunal noted that “a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken” was necessary. While it is true that this case law concerned individual transfers and not a collective transfer as in the present case, the Tribunal considers that the Organisation is wrong to submit that this requirement does not apply here because there is nothing in its Staff Regulations and Rules of Application imposing such an obligation in the context of a collective transfer carried out in the interests of the service.
Firstly, the absence of a binding provision to this effect in the applicable rules cannot permit an organisation to disregard the principles established by the Tribunal’s case law. Secondly, the fact that the transfer was collective rather than individual does not exempt the Organisation from this fundamental requirement. Although the Tribunal’s case law has it that the general principle protecting a staff member’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see, for example, Judgments 4593, consideration 7, and 4283, consideration 6), in the present case, even if the impugned decision was collective in scope, it was obviously not impersonal. The Tribunal considers that a decision which, as in this case, notifies specifically identified staff members of their new individual postings with effect from 4 July 2019 cannot be considered an impersonal decision.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by Eurocontrol’s argument that it would not be “conceivable or even possible” for an organisation to consult individually each staff member before a collective transfer on the scale of that at issue in the present case, which affected over 600 staff members. The Organisation cannot refer to the scale of the collective transfer in support of its argument that it was not required to allow every staff member to comment before transferring her or him, even if this was done in a manner that was adapted and appropriate to the particular situation of this major reorganisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4283, 4399, 4451, 4593, 4609
Keywords:
consultation; general decision; right to be heard; transfer;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that, owing to the circumstances in which the complainant’s transfer took place, without him being afforded any opportunity to express his views or to be heard before it was put into effect, that transfer was bound to hurt and shock him and thereby cause him substantial and serious moral injury. The Tribunal considers that this moral injury will be fairly redressed by awarding the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 euros.
Keywords:
consultation; moral injury; right to be heard; transfer;
Judgment 4690
136th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to uphold his transfer to Budapest.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; transfer;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The requirement that the potential transferee be provided with reasons for the transfer is plainly linked to the right to present possible observations before the decision to transfer is perfected. The complainant contends no reasons were given. This is challenged by the FAO which says, […] in substance, three reasons were given. The first was that this transfer to the Budapest duty station accommodated the complainant’s medical circumstances which had been evaluated by the FAO’s medical service. The second was that the post was commensurate with the complainant’s professional qualifications and the third was that the transfer was in the interests of the Organization.
The second and third reasons were expressed at a high level of generality as reasons for nominating Budapest as the duty station and, particularly given the requirement in FAO Manual paragraph 311.4.11 to take into account the requirements of the work programme, did not provide the detail the provision implies. At the very least, that matter had to be expressly addressed in the reasons given for the transfer. Moreover, to say that the Budapest duty station accommodated the complainant’s medical circumstances is not, in isolation, a reason for transferring him there unless it is suggested, which it is not, that the Budapest duty station was the only duty station to which the complainant could have been transferred and which accommodated his medical circumstances. The Organization failed to do what was required of it, namely to provide him with reasons.
Keywords:
motivation; transfer;
Consideration 21
Extract:
The Tribunal now considers the relief claimed. The decision to transfer the complainant to Budapest did not respect the applicable rules (in the FAO Manual) and therefore, in this respect, was unlawful. The complainant requests that this transfer decision be quashed “with full retroactive effect, and all legal effects that flow therefrom”. No attempt is made to identify those legal effects. In any event, whether there remains an operative decision to transfer the complainant is now of no obvious legal or practical consequence, given that the transfer was effected, the complainant remained in Budapest in the post to which he had been transferred for almost two years, and the complainant has now retired and left the service of the FAO. In these circumstances, in accordance with Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal, the decision will not be quashed.
Keywords:
relief claimed; transfer;
Judgment 4687
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment after she refused two reassignments.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The general principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning decisions to reassign staff have most recently been discussed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4595:
“Consistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules, and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; whether it rests upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 2). An international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 11). It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgment 3601, under 20). [...]
The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgment 4253, under 3). While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organization (see Judgment 2635, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635, 3601, 4253, 4427, 4595
Keywords:
judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer;
Consideration 8
Extract:
One legal issue presented for consideration by the pleas is whether the power to reassign an official to such a position is in any way conditioned or qualified in circumstances where a competition is on foot to fill the position. While it is not explicitly put this way by the complainant, it is the import of one of her pleas. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the direct appointment of a person to a position in circumstances where it denied the complainant “a right to compete” (see generally Judgments 4069, 3742, 3288 and 2959). By parity of reasoning, and notwithstanding the unequivocal bias just referred to, the decision to appoint the complainant, by way of reassignment, to the position in Cameroon deprived those who had entered the competition following the 27 December 2017 vacancy announcement of their right to compete and for each to have their candidature assessed on its merits. Deprivation of that right would involve a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith (see Judgments 4619, consideration 8, and 4618, consideration 8) to those who entered the competition. Consistent with the existence of this duty to act in good faith, the power to fill a position by reassignment, should not be interpreted as authorising reassignment
to a position when a competition is on foot to fill the very same position. There is an implied limitation on the exercise of the power to reassign. Thus, the decision of 12 January 2018 to reassign the complainant to the position in Cameroon was not lawful. Accordingly, the decision of 16 March 2018 to terminate her employment because she had refused the reassignment, was tainted by the unlawfulness of the reassignment decision and the decision to terminate should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3288, 3742, 4069, 4618, 4619
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; reassignment; selection procedure; termination of employment; transfer;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is well established in the case law of the Tribunal that a decision to transfer an employee of an international organisation, which, as with any appointment decision, lies within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation concerned, is, for that reason, subject to only limited review. Therefore, such a decision may be set aside only if it was taken ultra vires, if it shows formal or procedural flaws or a mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4451, consideration 6, 3488, consideration 3, 2635, consideration 5, 1556, consideration 5, and 883, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883, 1556, 2635, 3488, 4451
Keywords:
discretion; role of the tribunal; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; transfer;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example,Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451
Keywords:
duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law shows that an organisation that is intending to transfer a staff member is obliged to ensure that the implementation of that measure is preceded by proper notice enabling the staff member to make the necessary arrangements for the change in her or his duty station (see [...] Judgment 1556, consideration 12, Judgment 1496, considerations 11 and 13, and [...] Judgment 810, consideration 7). In the present case, the period of 11 days given to the complainant under the decision of 18 February 2013 to take up her new post at Headquarters clearly fell short of that requirement, particularly given that in practical terms the transfer in question involved moving from Kinshasa to Paris.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1496, 1556
Keywords:
duty station; notification; time limit; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 4599
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post, reassign her, terminate her contract including the decision to defer the date of her termination, and to reject her claims of retaliation.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Regarding the reassignment of staff, the Tribunal has recognized the wide discretion of an executive head of an international organization to reassign staff in the interest of the organization. The discretion is enshrined in Article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations which states that all staff members are subject to the authority of the executive head of the organization and to assignment by her or him to any of the activities or offices of the organization. The Tribunal has therefore stated that it may interfere with a decision to reassign a staff member only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal has however emphasised that the organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level of responsibilities as she or he performed in the previous post and matching her or his qualifications (Judgment 4240, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4240
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 4595
135th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him to another duty station.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; transfer;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules, and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; whether it rests upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 2). An international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 11). It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgment 3601, under 20). […]
The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgment 4253, under 3). While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision maker to the interests of the organization (see Judgment 2635, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635, 3601, 4253, 4427
Keywords:
discretion; transfer;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
