|
|
 |
|
|
Budgetary reasons (380,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Budgetary reasons
Total judgments found: 57
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5132
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
Judgment 5130
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract further to the abolition of his position due to budgetary constraints.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
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 5
Extract:
“[A]n international organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment which is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff […]. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if taken without authority; if in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence […]. The Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited […].
[…] [A]n international organization has the duty to provide valid reasons for its non-renewal decision […]: ‘[…] a non-renewal decision must also be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones […]. Those reasons must also be communicated to the staff member concerned […], although they need not necessarily appear in the decision itself […].’
It is a firm principle established by the Tribunal’s case law that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member […].”
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 5101
141st Session, 2026
International Center for the Registration of Serials
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
« [U]n fonctionnaire titulaire d’un [contrat de durée déterminée] ne peut pas se prévaloir d’un droit à son renouvellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4587, au considérant 19, et 3448, au considérant 7). La décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’engagement d’un fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint de la part du Tribunal. Elle ne peut être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, si elle viole une règle de forme ou de procédure, si elle repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, si son auteur a omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou a tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou si elle est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4877, au considérant 2, 4654, au considérant 16, 4172, au considérant 5, 2148, au considérant 23, ou 1052, au considérant 4). Par ailleurs, le rôle du Tribunal dans l’examen des décisions de non-renouvellement de contrats pour des raisons budgétaires est, par nature, limité (voir les jugements 4953, au considérant 4, 4834, au considérant 2, et 3367, au considérant 11). Il n’en reste pas moins que toute décision de non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement de durée déterminée doit reposer sur des raisons objectives et valables (voir, notamment, le jugement 4654, au considérant 16).»
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [D]es considérations d’ordre financier ou budgétaire peuvent constituer une raison suffisante, objective et valable, pour justifier le non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement (voir, notamment, les jugements 3837, au considérant 10, et 1044, au considérant 3). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 3837
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [I]l n’appartient pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qui est le sien en la matière, de se substituer à l’appréciation qui a été faite par la Directrice et le Conseil d’administration concernant les restrictions budgétaires nécessitant le non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante […] il n’incombe pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qu’il est appelé à exercer en la matière, de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle de la Directrice en recherchant s’il n’y avait pas d’autres alternatives financières possibles au non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante afin de faire face aux difficultés budgétaires que rencontrait le Centre. »
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
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 4953
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant further refers to the Tribunal’s statement in considerations 19 and 20 of Judgment 3586 that “all relevant documents should have been disclosed [by the Organization in question] to [the internal appeal body], without its request, to enable it to thoroughly investigate the central question: whether funds were or would have been available or were ‘expected to be assured’ at the material time to fund the extension” of the contract of the complainant in that case. The complainant states that she provided evidence to the JAB that as of 12 June 2020, there was a balance of over 2 million euros in the IAEA’s budget to fund the HR and non-HR functions in her department and the latter should have produced to the JAB all the documents related to the allotment transfer in June 2020 and whether it was done in line with its Financial Regulations and Rules in order to determine, in effect, whether funds were available to continue to fund her position. She submits that the IAEA’s failure to produce the documents to her and to the JAB constituted a breach of due process. She cites the Tribunal statement in consideration 17 of Judgment 3586 that the organization in that case “breached due process by not disclosing all of the agreements and related information, which could have assisted the [internal appeal body] to have made a properly informed determination whether financial constraint was a valid reason for not extending [her] contract”. […] The foregoing submissions show that the complainant has failed to appreciate, first, that in Judgment 3586, the question of whether funds were “expected to be assured” was an enquiry dictated by a specific provision (Paragraph III.5.12 of WHO’s e-Manual) which is not applicable in the present case […]. In the second place, Judgment 3586 was not concerned with the non-extension of an appointment to a position funded by extra-budgetary contribution by a donor government wherein the IAEA was under no obligation to allocate funds from its regular budget to fund the position when the donor government withdrew its funding for it in the terms stated in consideration 9 of this judgment, which the Tribunal accepts, as did the JAB. […] Stated in another way, the essential question regarding this aspect of the third ground is not (as the complainant suggests) whether as of [the time of the non-renewal] sufficient funds remained in the Department’s budget to cover the complainant’s position […] The question is whether funds had been allocated by the donor government to continue to fund the complainant’s extra-budgetary post when its term expired […], and they were not. There was therefore no basis for the IAEA to disclose information concerning the question whether funds were or could have been made available from the IAEA’s regular budget or were ”expected to be assured” to continue to fund the complainant’s position. It was therefore unnecessary for the JAB to order the disclosure of the documents she seeks or for the IAEA to share them with the JAB without its request.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 23
Extract:
[R]egarding the complainant’s argument that her position could have been funded from other sources of funding, in Judgment 4834, consideration 9, quoting Judgment 3163, consideration 8, the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. The Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163, 4834
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Staff Regulation 11.2.2 relevantly states that the end of a fixed-term contract at its normal term does not create a right for the employee to have his or her contract automatically renewed or extended. The Tribunal’s case law states that notwithstanding a provision such as Staff Regulation 11.2.2 or a similar provision in a complainant’s terms of appointment, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision taken without authority; in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. The case law further states that the Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgment 3367, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3367, 4503
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that in its report, the Commission correctly referred, among other things, to Judgment 3163, in which the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. In consideration 8, the Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “[…] It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant refers to consideration 13 of Judgment 3586 in which the Tribunal considered that “[w]hether funds were known to have been available to fund the extension of the complainant [in that case]’s contract [was] a question of fact, which the [internal appeal body] had to determine” and that “[the internal appeal body] could not have simply relied on [the organization]’s assertion that grants were received for specified purposes that did not include funding for the complainant’s post”. It is apparent to the Tribunal that this is the exercise the Appeals Commission conducted in the internal appeal procedure at hand. The Commission assessed the relevant documents and facts it had gathered from the Federation and from the interviews it conducted, including with the complainant, it made a finding that “no funding was available for the [...] position held by the [complainant].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4195
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to modify the conditions governing sickness insurance for employees’ spouses.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In respect of the solidarity principle, and with an eye to the obligation to maintain sound financial management of the Organisation, the President proposed these new measures to balance the costs and benefits to all staff and their spouses.
Keywords:
budgetary reasons;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the conditions under which health insurance for employees’ spouses is provided do not give rise to an acquired right. The Organisation is entitled to adjust the contribution rate if there are compelling reasons (including budgetary reasons), within reasonable limits. The Tribunal is satisfied in this case that the increased contribution rate resulting from the additional contribution for spouses is reasonable, justified and modest.
Keywords:
acquired right; budgetary reasons; health insurance;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 25
Extract:
[T]he [organization] could not refer to the complainant’s alleged misconduct as a reason not to reinstate him as no disciplinary proceeding has occurred in that regard, so misconduct has never been proven. It is all the more grave when considering that the alleged reason for the abolition of the posts was because of financial constraints. The abolition of a post can never be based on a staff member’s conduct, as that would constitute a hidden sanction. The [organization]’s presentation before the Council of Administration constituted a breach of the duty of care and of the adversarial principle, as the complainant was not given any opportunity to defend himself and his reputation from the allegations. The UPU must respect the dignity of its staff and preserve their reputation.
Keywords:
abolition of post; adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; due process; duty of care; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; reinstatement;
Judgment 4028
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[A]s the complainants point out, the burden of the new measures is borne by the insured persons alone. It must however be remembered that, despite a fall in its income resulting from a zero growth budget and the drop in contributions from some member States, the ITU continues to fund 50 per cent of the scheme for staff members and two thirds of it for retirees. As the defendant organisation explains, the new measures which have been put in place seek to maintain the financial equilibrium of the new insurance plan in order to ensure its continuity and stability while respecting the principles of solidarity and mutualisation of risks.
In Judgment 1241, under 19, the Tribunal considered that “the change the complainants object[ed] to [was] part of wider reforms the [organisation] made to put the [health insurance] scheme on a sounder financial footing over the long term” and that the organisation in question was “right to pursue that aim by all suitable means at its disposal, [including by] measures to ensure that, in keeping with the notion of mutual aid, everyone bears a fair share of costs”.
This consideration applies mutatis mutandis to the present complaints.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1241
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; health insurance; medical expenses;
Judgment 3929
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law: “[w]hether the post was abolished for financial reasons is a question of fact. Those facts were within the knowledge of [the organization] and it must show that when it advanced financial reasons as a ground for the abolition of the complainant’s post this was genuine. It has not done so. In the absence of that evidence, it is determined that the complainant’s post was unlawfully abolished and the claim on this ground is well founded” (see Judgment 3688, under 18). In the Tribunal’s view, the UPU has not presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that the abolition of posts was for urgent financial reasons.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; burden of proof;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 13
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law: “[w]hether the post was abolished for financial reasons is a question of fact. Those facts were within the knowledge of [the organization] and it must show that when it advanced financial reasons as a ground for the abolition of the complainant’s post this was genuine. It has not done so. In the absence of that evidence, it is determined that the complainant’s post was unlawfully abolished and the claim on this ground is well founded” (see Judgment 3688, under 18). In the Tribunal’s view, the UPU has not presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that the abolition of posts was for urgent financial reasons.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; burden of proof;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The case law concerning the Tribunal’s consideration of changes to salary structures and grading systems makes clear that the role of the Tribunal is limited and the discretionary power of the organisation to make such changes based on policy or budgetary considerations must ordinarily be respected (see, for example, Judgments 1118, considerations 19 to 20, and 3274, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1118, 3274
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; judicial review; salary;
Judgment 3920
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[W]hen a post is abolished for financial reasons it is incumbent on the organisation to demonstrate that this was genuine, given that the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the organisation (see Judgment 3688, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; burden of proof;
Judgment 3576
121st Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract due to budgetary constraints.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3367
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint filed against the decision to not renew the complainant’s contract on the ground that his employment under short-term contracts was lawful.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s role in reviewing decisions not to renew contracts for budgetary reasons is extremely limited (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3; 2362, under 7; and 3103, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 2362, 3103
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; complaint allowed; decision quashed; separation from service; termination of employment;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; case law; consequence; due process; implied decision; official; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;
Judgment 2682
104th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has already indicated in [...] Judgment 832, when weighing up the consequences of a breach of an acquired right, the financial situation of the organisation applying the terms of appointment in question cannot be discounted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 832
Keywords:
acquired right; breach; budgetary reasons; condition; consequence; organisation's interest;
Judgment 2633
103rd Session, 2007
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Where a decision to introduce a new pension scheme is taken on grounds of financial necessity, such as the need to address the rising cost of pensions, the Tribunal cannot consider it to be invalid merely because it leads to a situation that is less favourable to employees."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; decision; decision quashed; grounds; increase; injury; judicial review; official; organisation's interest; pension; pension adjustment system;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
