|
|
 |
|
|
Reorganisation (383,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reorganisation
Total judgments found: 99
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 5171
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants request a compensatory allowance to reduce the financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; complaint allowed; reorganisation;
Judgment 5147
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
“Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency, to make budgetary savings or if funding is no longer available, international organizations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules, and, in particular, the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see Judgments 4599, consideration 11, and 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of an organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions were taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rested upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4844, consideration 3, 4004, consideration 2, and 3582, consideration 6). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds, and its purpose should not be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 4353, consideration 6, and 3582, consideration 6). Moreover, a decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice, justification, and an opportunity to contest the decision. The Tribunal has further stated that the need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises precisely because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity to know and evaluate whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see Judgments 4937, consideration 2, 4935, consideration 4, 4353, consideration 7, 3928, consideration 15, and 3041, considerations 8 and 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041, 3238, 3582, 3928, 4004, 4353, 4599, 4844, 4935, 4937
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; organisation's duties; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
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 5025
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of reassignment made pursuant to a call for expression of interest and the decision to cancel a selection procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation; selection procedure;
Judgment 5024
140th 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 a reorganisation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 5019
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal rappelle que, en vertu de sa jurisprudence constante, les décisions relatives à la restructuration des services d’une organisation internationale, telles que celles portant sur une suppression de poste, relèvent du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4844, au considérant 3, 4841, au considérant 4, et la jurisprudence citée).
Ainsi que l’a précisé le Tribunal dans le jugement 4819, au considérant 6, dans de tels cas, son rôle est de vérifier «si ces décisions sont prises dans le respect des règles de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles ne reposent pas sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, ou si elles ne sont pas entachées de détournement de pouvoir. Le Tribunal ne se prononcera donc pas sur le bien-fondé d’une restructuration ou des décisions y relatives, tout comme il ne substituera pas sa propre appréciation à celle de l’organisation [dans de telles situations] (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4608, au considérant 7, 4405, au considérant 2, 4180, au considérant 3, ou 4004, au considérant 2, et la jurisprudence citée)» (voir également, dans le même sens, les jugements 4937, au considérant 2, et 4935, au considérant 4).
En revanche, le Tribunal a maintes fois relevé que toute suppression de poste doit être justifiée par des raisons objectives et ne saurait avoir pour but dissimulé d’éloigner du service un fonctionnaire considéré comme indésirable, ce qui constituerait alors un détournement de pouvoir (voir, à ce sujet, les jugements 4599, au considérant 11, 4353, au considérant 6, 2830, au considérant 6 b), et 1231, au considérant 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 2830, 4004, 4180, 4353, 4405, 4599, 4608, 4819, 4841, 4844, 4935, 4937
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5017
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante considère avoir été privée de ses fonctions par suite d’une restructuration et demande réparation du préjudice qu’elle estime avoir subi en raison de ce qu’elle estime être une résiliation de facto de son engagement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; refusal to assign work; reorganisation;
Judgment 4988
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was a patent examiner in the area of competence G01R in Berlin, contests the general decision to close that area of competence as well as the individual decision to reassign him pursuant to that closure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4987
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close the area of competence G01R in Berlin.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reorganisation;
Judgment 4935
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to abolish his position and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency or to make budgetary savings international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4004, consideration 2). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3582, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3238, 3582, 4004
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; reorganisation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A] decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. The Tribunal has further stated that the need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises precisely because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see, for example, Judgment 3041, considerations 8 and 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The central question […] is whether IOM gave the complainant the required notification of the abolition of his post and the termination of his appointment. [T]he Tribunal does not impose on international organizations a duty to provide staff members whose positions are abolished with the full set of internal documents used as a basis for such decision. Rather, the Tribunal requires an organization to give such staff members notice within the required time and sufficient reasons for the decision to abolish their post and for any subsequent decision, including the termination of their appointment. This is the expressed purport of Regulation 9.4. It also accords with the well-settled case law that an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure, and, in so doing, may abolish posts. As well, it accords with the case law stated, for example, in consideration 7 of Judgment 3234, that a decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights and that these rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3234
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant’s submission, in effect, that the P-4 position, which the Administration created, served the same overall functions as those attached to his P-3 position it replaced “though ostensibly with a few heightened responsibilities”, suggests, in line with IOM’s submission, that his abolished position and the created position were different in terms of the overall scope and expertise required. The complainant’s further suggestion that he could have occupied the created position, as he was qualified to do so, does not advance his case further. As IOM points out, he could have applied for the position but elected not to and he had no right to be directly promoted to it, as he suggests. It was within the discretion of the Director General to determine, as he did, that IOM’s interests required that new positions be filled through competition. The Tribunal finds no reason to depart from the JARB’s conclusion that it (the JARB) recognized that the decision to restructure RSC was based on operational needs, which required a position with a higher level of expertise at the higher P-4 grade, and that IOM had no obligation to promote the complainant to that position for which he had not applied.
Keywords:
abolition of post; appointment without competition; duty of care; reassignment; reorganisation;
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The case law states that an organisation has a duty to explore possible options or to make reasonable efforts for the reassignment of a staff member whose post has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 2902, consideration 14, and 4097, consideration 9). In consideration 16 of Judgment 3908, the Tribunal stated that, while it has long recognized the right of an international organization to abolish positions, which will imperil the continuing employment of the occupants of those abolished positions, a concomitant of that right is an obligation to deal fairly with the staff who occupy those abolished positions. This obligation extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organisation for which those staff have the experience and qualifications.
Historically, the Tribunal generally considered the extent of an organization’s duty to reassign staff members whose positions were abolished mainly in relation to the type of contract they held, the nature of the post and/or the role to which they were assigned, their length of service with the organization, and recognized a greater duty in respect of staff who held permanent positions (see, for example, Judgment 3754, consideration 16). Nonetheless, in consideration 10 of Judgment 4097, the Tribunal stated that it does not follow that other classes of staff of differing status should be afforded no protection by principles it has developed in circumstances where their post is abolished and attempts are being made to reassign them.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3754, 3908, 4097
Keywords:
abolition of post; appointment; contract; duty of care; fixed-term; reassignment; reorganisation; temporary-indefinite;
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal is cognizant of the nature of the IOM’s funding structure as a project-based organization, which is significant, among other things, in that the employment of a large number of staff members is linked to the duration of the specific projects for which they are engaged. The Tribunal finds that in light of this, and IOM’s then discernible operational needs at that time, the Administration made reasonable efforts to reassign the complainant, thereby discharging its obligation and its duty towards him. Specifically, IOM invited the complainant to apply for vacant positions matching his qualifications and experience. IOM also considered other positions and reached out to eight other Missions and Regional Offices for the purpose of finding suitable reassignment options, but no available position matching the complainant’s qualifications and experience could be found. In the result, the complainant unsuccessfully applied for other positions. Against this background, the Tribunal cannot conclude that IOM violated its duty of care towards the complainant.
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; duty of care; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.
Keywords:
abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
Keywords:
abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Quite apart from any effect on the personal circumstances of a chief of a section or department, the Tribunal’s case law endorses the practice of requiring consultation with such a person in relation to plans for the reorganisation of the relevant section or department, and to not consult would ordinarily constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person (see, for example, Judgments 3353, consideration 30, 3071, consideration 30, and 2861, consideration 27). In this limited context, this would be particularly so if the reorganisation had an adverse effect on the personal circumstances of the individual section or departmental chief, though this is not to suggest any member of staff adversely affected by a reorganisation must be consulted before the reorganisation occurs.
However, in this case, the rather unusual circumstances inform the content of WIPO’s duty to consult. As just noted, it is reasonable to characterise the position of the complainant as having only been nominally the Director of CID in late 2017 and early 2018. However, and notwithstanding, an attempt was made to engage with him about the proposed reorganisation, though this was resisted by the complainant, on the basis being suggested, because of his ill health. In the Tribunal’s view, the basis being suggested by WIPO was, overall, reasonable. The complainant took the position, probably legitimately, that in the circumstances, him replying in writing within four days of the email of 18 December 2017 was too burdensome given his state of health. However, he also rejected the suggestion that he take the opportunity of discussing the matter by phone with the Deputy Director General. Again, he did so because, as he put it, of the state of his health. It was not at all obvious that, at this point in very late 2017, any effective consultation could take place and it was, therefore, open to the Deputy Director General to pursue the proposed reorganisation without input from the complainant.
There is nothing in the material before the Tribunal which would warrant a conclusion that WIPO should have proceeded, in relation to its obligation to consult, on the basis that the complainant would imminently return from sick leave and actively manage the CID or, potentially, whatever organisational division might replace it. Indeed, all the signs at that time were, including the approach adopted by the complainant to the invitation to discuss the proposed reorganisation by phone, that this would not occur.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 3071, 3353
Keywords:
organisation's duties; reorganisation; sick leave; staff member's interest;
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reorganisation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, including one involving the abolition of a post, lies at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4139, consideration 2, 4099, consideration 3, 3582, consideration 6, 2933, consideration 10, 2510, consideration 10, and 1131, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099, 4139
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring process, unless and until it negatively affects a staff member in breach of staff rules and regulations. A line must be drawn between restructuring directions and decisions, which fall within the discretion of an organization, and individual decisions adopted as a consequence of a restructuring process. The Tribunal will assess whether such individual decisions comply with staff rules and regulations and the Organization’s duty of care. In the present case, there is no evidence that the Organization did not comply with rules and principles concerning the duty of care towards staff in case of restructuring exercises.
Keywords:
discretion; duty of care; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Still with respect to the decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019, the complainant considers, secondly, that they are based on spurious grounds. The purportedly substantial reorganization of the NTS Division which the complainant headed was purely fictitious, his functions were not in fact abolished as had been indicated to him at the meeting of 5 July 2019, and no other staff member in his Division was really disadvantaged by the introduction of the new Technology Division. He also considers that a reorganization due to be finalized in September 2019 could not, under any circumstances, give rise to a decision to abolish his functions on 5 July 2019, that is more than three months in advance. Accordingly, the complainant takes the view that he was never afforded the opportunity to ascertain the real reasons for which his functions were abolished, as the Joint Committee for Disputes also unanimously observed. In this regard, the complainant refutes each of the various grounds relied on in turn by Eurocontrol, whether in the decisions of 5 July 2019 or in its written submissions to the Tribunal, and notes a contradiction between the grounds set forth successively by the Organisation.
The Tribunal notes that in the memorandum of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019, it was firstly stated that following the reorganization of the Agency, the NTS Division would be abolished, as would the complainant’s functions. It was indicated secondly, in an email of 8 August 2019, that following the regrouping of all of the Agency’s information technology activities, the role of Head of the new Technology Division had become a substantially different role from that of Head of the NTS Division, in particular because that new division was approximately three times the size of the former NTS Division. Thirdly, the Agency argued that the organizational changes introduced meant that new skills were required for managerial positions, and that the “leadership” style desired and required by the Director General no longer matched the profile of the complainant, who was more a technical expert than a “leader”.
Thus, the specific justifications given concerning the various decisions of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019 changed as time went by, in line with his criticisms. The initial outright abolition of his functions became a substantial modification of the duties to be performed and, finally, turned into a modification of the “leadership” style required of the incumbents of managerial posts. This is all the more regrettable given that the complainant clearly stated, and this is not disputed by Eurocontrol, on the one hand, that from 2014 to 2017 he had headed the NTS Division, which already consisted of some 150 staff members and in which all of the Agency’s information technology services were grouped together before it was decided to split them, and, in July 2019, to regroup them again, and, on the other hand, that his various performance evaluation reports, in particular those relating to this period, had always been very positive, in particular with regard to his “leadership” capacity.
It follows that the various grounds on which the above-mentioned decisions are purported to be based cannot be considered valid and adequate within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4108, consideration 3, and 1817, consideration 7).
This plea is, therefore, well-founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4108, 4467
Keywords:
abolition of post; motivation; motivation of final decision; reorganisation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
At the outset, it should be recalled that consistent precedent has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law, or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4405, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, or 4004, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal has found that the abolition of any post must be based on objective grounds and must not serve as a pretext for removing staff regarded as unwanted, since this would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4599, consideration 11, 4353, consideration 6, 2830, consideration 6(b), and 1231, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 2830, 4004, 4180, 4353, 4405, 4599, 4608
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant further argues [...] that the decision to place him on “administrative leave” is, in itself, unlawful, given that there is no provision for this administrative status in the Staff Regulations and the Rules of Application thereof. He notes in this regard that he is the only Agency staff member to have been removed from his functions and placed on “administrative leave” in the context of the reorganization carried out in 2019.
In its reply, Eurocontrol contends that the mere fact that “administrative leave” is not expressly provided for by the Staff Regulations does not, however, render its application unlawful. It argues that this measure formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments detailed in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and was a legitimate means of managing complex situations caused by restructuring measures resulting in the abolition of the functions of the official concerned and in which immediate reassignment was not possible, in particular because of the complainant’s high grade at the time of the reorganization. [...]
There is no provision in Article 5 that the official concerned may, while his potential reassignment is being reviewed, be placed on temporary “administrative leave”, as such a status is not provided for by the Staff Regulations or the Rules of Application. As the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes rightly pointed out in their report of 8 July 2020, this status does not appear in the exhaustive list of possible statuses to which staff members may be assigned, as laid down by Article 37 of the Staff Regulations, and while the term “administrative leave” is used in Article 10 of Rule of Application No. 6 concerning the terms and conditions governing leave, it is used in an entirely different context, namely where an official is placed on “administrative leave granted on an exceptional basis by the Agency’s Medical Officer”, pursuant to Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, since the determination of the administrative status assigned to a staff member must be considered an essential part of her or his status, the Organisation is also mistaken in its mere assertion that the measure of placement on temporary “administrative leave” formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments provided for in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations [...].
It follows that the plea whereby the decision to place the complainant on temporary “administrative leave” is tainted with an error of law is also founded.
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation; special leave;
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to the various decisions of 5 July 2019 to abolish the complainant’s functions at the time it was decided to reorganize the Agency, to launch a reassignment procedure in his regard and to place him on “administrative leave” with immediate effect, the complainant alleges, firstly, a violation of his right to be heard, which Eurocontrol disputes.
However, the Tribunal finds that the written submissions of the parties show that the purpose of the discussion that took place on 5 July 2019 – the day on which the Director of the DNM announced the reorganization of the Agency’s structure to staff – was clearly not to hear the complainant about the proposed course of action to be taken in his regard, but simply to notify him of the decisions already taken concerning him. Similarly, it appears that the requests for explanations made by the complainant in the following days also went unanswered.
In this respect, Eurocontrol submits that the purpose of the exercise in this case was to reorganize its services and that the right to be heard individually could not, in any event, be considered in the context of such a general decision.
However, the Tribunal notes that, beyond the reorganization of services exercise decided upon for managerial reasons, the decisions taken on 5 July 2019 had a fundamental impact on the complainant’s situation, since they had, in particular, led to the abolition of his functions, which he strongly contests. These decisions had thus an adverse impact on the complainant, for which reason he should have had the opportunity to state his views before they were taken (see, for example, Judgments 4622, consideration 10, 3124, consideration 3, 1817, consideration 7, and 1484, consideration 8).
The plea that the right to be heard was violated is therefore well-founded as far as the decision to abolish the complainant’s functions is concerned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124, 4622
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4799
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests, firstly, the decision to reassign him pursuant to the closure of his area of competence in Berlin, and to reallocate some patent files, secondly, the decision to reallocate some patent files in the context of his reassignment and, thirdly, the closure of an area of competence per se.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power, and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere 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 from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5, and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4798
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant further contends that the closure of the area of competence G01R in Berlin did not increase efficiency as indicated by the EPO. However, the complainant does not establish procedural or substantive errors of this decision, which is organizational in nature, and thus involved the exercise of a wide discretionary power. The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide which of the many possible restructuring options should be chosen by the Organisation.
Keywords:
discretion; reorganisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members, involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere 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 from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5 and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
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;
Judgment 4767
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 2
Extract:
First of all, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law that decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation, including to abolish posts, may be taken at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall confine itself to ascertaining whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest on a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of individual decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4503, consideration 11, and 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; complaint dismissed; reorganisation;
Judgment 4766
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; complaint dismissed; reorganisation;
Consideration 2
Extract:
First of all, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law that decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation, including to abolish posts, may be taken at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall confine itself to ascertaining whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest on a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of individual decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4503, consideration 11, and 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
