Judicial review (538, 540, 542, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 555, 557, 558, 862, 559, 561, 563, 565, 569, 571, 572, 927, 841,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Judicial review
Total judgments found: 609
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 | next >
Judgment 5176
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Considerations 4 and 8
Extract:
“[The] assessment [of an employee’s performance during a specified period] involves a value judgement and, for this reason, the Tribunal must recognize the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the ratings given to the employee have been determined in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by these bodies of the qualities, performance, and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore intervene only if the staff report was drawn up without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4795, consideration 9, 4564, consideration 3, 4267, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 8, 3228, consideration 3, and 3062, consideration 3).
[…] As already stated in Judgment 4795, consideration 14, it is not for the Tribunal, whose role is not to supplant the administrative bodies responsible for staff appraisals within an international organization, to determine the rating to be given to an employee in a PER.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3062, 3228, 3692, 4267, 4564, 4795
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance evaluation; rating;
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 24
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls its established case law concerning disciplinary matters. The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, 4491, consideration 19, and 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, and 4364, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4364, 4491, 4858
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5153
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
“[I]t is desirable to briefly discuss the Tribunal’s case law concerning the renewal of temporary contacts. A convenient summary of the overarching principles is found in Judgment 4877, consideration 2: ‘It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that the decision not to renew the appointment of a staff member of an international organisation lies within the discretion of its executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4654, consideration 16, 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, or 1052, consideration 4). That is, a fortiori, the situation in a case such as this where the dispute concerns the non-renewal of a temporary appointment which expressly stated that the appointee was not guaranteed any renewal or conversion of his contract into any other type of contract’[…]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 2148, 4172, 4654, 4877
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls that it is well established in its case law that it is not its role to re-evaluate the evidence in cases of harassment in the face of findings by an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see Judgment 4884, consideration 5), at least in the absence of demonstrated manifest error (see Judgments 4999, consideration 6, 4884, consideration 5, 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2). Also, an internal appeals body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where the report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational (see Judgment 4848, consideration 10) […] In essence, the question to be addressed is whether the complainant, in his pleas, has established a vitiating error [in the] investigation and report […] or by the Director-General in the exercise of his discretionary power to close the case (see Judgment 4999, considerations 5 to 7). The answer is that he has not.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597, 4091, 4344, 4848, 4884, 4999, 4999
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5149
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue him with a written reprimand.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal has consistently stated, as it recalled in consideration 5 of Judgment 5003, for example, that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning the Tribunal’s limited power of review and not to that of an internal appeal body. This, according to the Tribunal, is because internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged, and that, ordinarily, the task of internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made as its power extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions, which restriction is not provided for in the FAO’s rules. This error of law by the Appeals Committee is sufficient basis for setting aside the impugned decision without it being necessary to consider other grounds.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
advisory body; case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; due process; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 5146
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the FAO’s decisions to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for misconduct, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations (UN) system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
“A right to an effective internal appeal is an important one. […] the role of an internal appeals body ordinarily involves a comprehensive review of the facts and, if appropriate, the consideration of fresh evidence. The complainant is entitled to an effective internal appeal, and the matter should be remitted to the FAO to enable his appeal to be heard by a freshly constituted Appeals Committee […]. The impugned decision should be set aside though, in the absence of an order of reinstatement, setting aside the impugned decision does not lead to the complainant’s re-engagement as a staff member of the Organization.
Whatever the outcome of the present dispute, the effect of the failure to properly examine the complainant’s internal appeal was to delay its final settlement. In the circumstances of the case, that failure has in itself caused the complainant moral injury which will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay him compensation of 5,000 United States dollars.”
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeals body; judicial review; moral damages; moral injury; right of appeal; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5145
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim that his injury was service-incurred.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Based on the evidence in the record, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the Organization to find that the complainant’s illness was not service-incurred based on the available scientific evidence. This finding adhered to the requisite standard of proof based on the balance of probabilities."
Keywords:
illness; judicial review; service-incurred; standard of proof;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t is appropriate to recall the role of the Tribunal in reviewing decisions concerning medical issues, which is not limited to procedural defects. The Tribunal does have full competence to say whether the medical findings show any material mistake or inconsistency, or overlook some essential fact, or plainly misread the evidence (see Judgment 1752, consideration 9). The limit of this review is that, being scientifically based and scientifically relevant, the medical bodies’ evaluations should be accepted by the Tribunal unless they are considered clearly unreliable according to current scientific knowledge (see Judgment 2580, consideration 6). The Tribunal will not substitute its own determination for the medical findings upon which that decision was based and can annul decisions based on medical findings if they are affected by misuse of authority, error of law or of fact, or discernible arbitrariness (see Judgment 3745, consideration 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752, 2580, 3745
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; service-incurred;
Judgment 5134
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his contract based on his unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Similarly, with respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. It stated the following in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, and confirmed it in Judgment 4840, consideration 7:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7). (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)”
Also, the Tribunal recalls the following in Judgment 4666, consideration 4:
“An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked […]".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713, 4840
Keywords:
judicial review; performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; judicial review; performance evaluation; renewal of contrat;
Consideration 5
Extract:
At this juncture, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, 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, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, based 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 (see, for example, Judgments 4372, consideration 8, and 4000, consideration 3). The Tribunal also stated in Judgment 4513, consideration 5, that the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is a discretionary decision, but if the decision rests on poor performance, the assessment of that performance has to be made in accordance with the rules established for that purpose; allied to this is an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see, in particular, Judgment 4289, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4289, 4372, 4503, 4513
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; renewal of contrat;
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.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, 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, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it was based 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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4503
Keywords:
career; decision; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has further held that its role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgments 4953, consideration 4, 4834, consideration 2, and 3367, consideration 11). As explained in Judgment 3163, consideration 8, and reiterated in Judgments 4953, consideration 23, and 4834, consideration 9, it is necessary for the complainant 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”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3163, 3367, 4834, 4953
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; material error; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 5123
141st Session, 2026
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Considerations 11 and 13
Extract:
«[S]elon une jurisprudence constante, le classement ou le reclassement d’un poste au sein d’une organisation internationale est laissé à l’appréciation du chef exécutif de cette organisation et le Tribunal n’exerce donc sur les décisions prises en cette matière qu’un contrôle restreint. Une telle décision ne pourra ainsi être censurée, en principe, 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. En effet, le classement des postes appelle nécessairement un jugement de valeur quant à la nature et à l’étendue des tâches et responsabilités qui y sont afférentes, et il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de procéder à une évaluation de ce type (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4960, au considérant 17, 4685, au considérant 4, 4221, au considérant 11, 3589, au considérant 4, ou 3294, au considérant 8). »
« [R]ien ne permettrait au Tribunal d’affirmer, eu égard aux limites de son contrôle en la matière fixées par la jurisprudence […], que l’évolution […] constatée des missions et des qualifications du requérant eût suffi à justifier un reclassement du poste occupé par celui-ci ».
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3294, 3589, 4221, 4685, 4960
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 5122
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[C]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 4343, consideration 4, 4106, consideration 12, and 3872, consideration 2). The case law also states, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, that the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4749, consideration 5, 4227, consideration 6, and 3862, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3872, 4106, 4227, 4343, 4749
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The violation of the complainant’s due process in the disciplinary process was a manifest error, which permits the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision, as well as the initial decision contained in the letter of 7 February 2020, without it being necessary to rule on any other plea the complainant proffers. Inasmuch as the complainant’s rights to due process were violated, he is entitled to moral damages. For this, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will award him 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; judicial review; manifest error; moral damages; patere legem; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[F]irm and constant precedents have it that the role of the Tribunal is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt, but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion and whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
It is also worth recalling that in Judgment 4579, consideration 4, the Tribunal emphasized that “[it] shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error […]” […].
With respect to the burden of proof applicable in disciplinary proceedings, it is furthermore recognized that “the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]."
Lastly, in respect of harassment matters such as the instant case, established precedent of the Tribunal states that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts or events complained of […].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4579
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Consideration 31
Extract:
“[T]he role of the Tribunal […] is normally not to assess itself the evidence. […] [T]he Tribunal relevantly recalled that “[...] [i]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body, the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence […].”
Moreover, for the Tribunal to determine whether it is satisfied that evidence was available for the decision maker to reach the conclusions that it reached and that the latter properly applied the relevant standard in doing so, it needs to first have available the findings and determinations of the internal appeal body in this regard when the latter, like in the instant case, expressly indicates still having “some doubts on the evidence from both sides”. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4923, consideration 5, “[w]hile the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them was, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been taken […]”. It is indeed particularly not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4923
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5110
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who suffers from service-incurred injuries, contests the decision to deny full reimbursement for her laboratory test expenses.
Consideration 9
Extract:
“In a [medical] case such as this, the Tribunal will not substitute its own views for the medical opinions on which the Administration’s decision is based. The Tribunal is, however, fully competent to assess whether the required procedure was correctly followed and to determine whether the challenged decision was unlawful, among other things, because it contained any substantive error or inconsistency, overlooked essential facts or drew erroneous conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4831, consideration 4, 3994, consideration 5, and 3689, consideration 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3689, 3994, 4831
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion;
Judgment 5098
141st Session, 2026
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-recognition of her illness as occupational.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“Established precedent has it that where, like in the present case, a complaint involves a medical matter, the Tribunal “may not replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence” (see, in particular, Judgments 4761, consideration 2, 4699, consideration 6, 4694, consideration 11, 4464, consideration 7, 3994, consideration 5, and 3361, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699, 4761
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“It appears that, in the minds of the drafters of the JAAB’s recommendation, the consideration that “the JAAB has no mandate to investigate the recommendations of the JADB” was based on the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body, and the findings of such a body are entitled to considerable deference by it, unless they have been improperly established or reveal a manifest error […]. However, this case law concerns the role of the Tribunal itself, not that of an appeal body […]. This case law is explained, inter alia, by the fact that it is not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body and by the idea that it is not best placed to assess the reliability of the statements of persons who may be heard in the course of an investigation. More generally, it refers to the particular features and limits of the Tribunal’s judicial role. However, these specificities do not apply to appeal bodies and, as the Tribunal has held on several occasions, such a body is wrong, when, in defining its own role, it refers to restrictions that apply in certain cases to the judicial review of administrative decisions […]. While the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them is, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made […].The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is where the rules governing the appeal body provide for such restrictions […]. The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof […].
Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case not only did the JAAB refuse to further investigate the case, it also refused to conduct a legal analysis of the proceedings before the JADB, in order to assess whether it complied with the applicable staff rules and regulations and whether the procedural flaws in the process alleged by the complainant had occurred.
It should be emphasized that this error of law, which resulted in the JAAB’s refusal to fully review the disciplinary decision, had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered by that body. As a result, the complainant was not granted a fair and effective internal remedy.”
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; internal appeals body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
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 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;
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;
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 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 5
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle également sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle il n’opère en la matière qu’un contrôle restreint. Il ne peut en effet intervenir que si la décision émane d’un organe incompétent, viole une règle 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 est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, notamment, les jugements 4595, au considérant 2, 4084, au considérant 13, 3488, au considérant 3, et 2562, au considérant 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4595
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 5034
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration des performances, de même que le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Dès lors que le litige porte essentiellement sur l’appréciation des performances de la requérante pour l’année 2019, le Tribunal rappelle à cet égard sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l’évaluation des mérites d’un fonctionnaire au cours d’une période déterminée fait appel à un jugement de valeur, ce qui exige de sa part qu’il respecte le pouvoir d’appréciation des organes chargés de procéder à une telle évaluation. Si le Tribunal doit certes contrôler si les notes attribuées au fonctionnaire ont été à tous égards régulièrement établies, il ne lui appartient cependant pas de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle des personnes et/ou organes chargés de procéder à l’évaluation des membres du personnel d’une organisation internationale. Le Tribunal n’interviendra en conséquence que si le rapport d’évaluation contesté émane d’une autorité incompétente, a été établi en violation d’une règle de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte d’un fait essentiel, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou est entaché de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4962, au considérant 7, 4564, aux considérants 3 et 8, 4258, au considérant 2, 3692, au considérant 8, 3268, au considérant 9, 3228, au considérant 3, 3062, au considérant 3, et 1688, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1688, 3062, 3228, 3268, 3692, 4258, 4564, 4962
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance evaluation; work appraisal;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 | next >
|
