|
|
 |
|
|
Decision-maker (544,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision-maker
Total judgments found: 59
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5133
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.
Consideration 7
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, a decision-maker imposing a disciplinary sanction, including the serious sanction of discharge, must be satisfied that the factual foundation for the finding of misconduct is proven beyond reasonable doubt (see Judgment 4936, consideration 6). Moreover, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4227, consideration 6, 4106, consideration 11, and 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled 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 (see, for example, Judgments 4949, consideration 10, and 4362, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 4106, 4227, 4362, 4936, 4949
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct; role of the tribunal; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Regarding the severity of a disciplinary measure, the Tribunal’s case law has it that while the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, for example, Judgments 4832, consideration 47, 4343, consideration 17, 4244, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary (see, for example, Judgment 2656, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2656, 4244, 4343, 4832
Keywords:
decision-maker; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Judgment 4945
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision to confirm the allegations of sexual harassment against him, to impose on him a ban from all future employment with the FAO/World Food Programme, to include his name in the United Nations Clear Check screening database for perpetrators of sexual harassment, not to renew his short-term contract following a mandatory break in service, and to place a note in his personnel file confirming this.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s assessment of the investigation that had been undertaken by OIGI is that it was thorough and balanced. Its report was cogent and persuasive. It is not for the Tribunal to itself determine whether the conduct of the subject of the grievance has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there was evidence before the decision-maker which would justify such a decision by that decision-maker (see, for example, Judgment 3964, consideration 13). In this case there was. More generally, the Tribunal will accept findings of fact by investigative bodies, particularly when they have heard evidence from witnesses (as happened in this case) in the absence of manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3964, 4237
Keywords:
decision-maker; deference; discretion; internal appeals body; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
If it was open to the FAO/WPF to find the complainant guilty of the misconduct alleged, as it was, then what it decided to do in consequence involved the exercise of a discretionary power. It is not evident at all that the discretionary power miscarried when the FAO/WFP decided to ban the complainant from future employment and to place a note in his personnel file to this effect. Similarly, the discretionary power did not miscarry in relation to causing personal information identifying the complainant to be placed on the United Nations Clear Check screening database, which appears to have been created “to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment”. Many international organisations have a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment and it is a legitimate mechanism, even if harsh, to meet that objective by creating a database designed to reveal individuals who have clearly been found to have engaged in such conduct.
Keywords:
decision-maker; disciplinary measure; discretion; personal data; personal file; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4923
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his internal complaint of untrue statements
Consideration 8
Extract:
[L]a jurisprudence du Tribunal admet que la décision d’une autorité compétente soit ainsi matériellement portée à la connaissance du fonctionnaire concerné, comme le veut d’ailleurs un usage répandu dans les organisations internationales, par la voie d’un message signé d’une autre autorité (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4809, au considérant 4, 4654, au considérant 17, ou 3352, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3352, 4654, 4809
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4915
139th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the BIPM’s decision to close his harassment complaint and to reject his requests for compensation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The contention that the allegations against the Director should have been decided by the CIPM as a whole, rather than by its President, is unfounded. The CIPM is the Director’s appointing authority, and, pursuant to the relevant rules, it is competent to terminate the Director’s appointment, to initiate a disciplinary action against the Director, and to take the decisions related to the conditions of employment of the Director. The relevant rules do not expressly address the issue at stake in the present proceedings, but the structure of the rules as a whole makes it sufficiently clear that they intend to confine the CIPM’s competence to the main decisions directly involving the Director, that is to say the appointment, the termination of the appointment, the conditions of employment, and does not include harassment proceedings lodged by other staff members and involving the Director, unless the decision to be taken is a disciplinary sanction against the Director. In the present case, the process in question was not a disciplinary process against the Director, but a process prompted by a harassment complaint. The competent authority was, in principle, the Director, and, as the Director could not decide upon a harassment complaint lodged against himself, he was lawfully replaced by the CIPM President and not by the CIPM as a whole.
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; harassment; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
As to the contention that the CIPM President and the Director were both in a conflict of interest, the Tribunal recalls its precedents concerning conflicts of interest. The Tribunal’s case law states that it is a general rule of law that officials who are called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to their jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which their impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It further states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, the officials may consider themselves able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see, for example, Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 4234, consideration 3). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4711, consideration 5, 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6).
In light of the Tribunal’s case law, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest with regard to the CIPM President. Firstly, contrary to the complainant’s contention, there is no evidence in the file that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed any of the complainant’s claims. In his 24 February 2021 decision, the CIPM President only acknowledged that over the years he “was kept informed of the situation, and [he] had personal experience of how some of the issues were handled”. Secondly, in any event, even if it were to be assumed that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed some of the complainant’s claims, this mere fact does not prove that he had prejudice against the complainant when he decided the harassment complaint.
As to the Director’s alleged conflict of interest, the Tribunal considers that his impartiality was open to question on reasonable grounds. The complainant’s harassment complaint [...] accused the Director and four other officials of harassment. The complainant contended that he was the victim of an orchestrated harassment, and that not only did the Director harass him, he also tolerated the alleged hostile work environment, and, instead of seeking to manage the strained working relationships, he “let them develop and expand”. The Director was one of the five officials subject to the external investigation and was interviewed during the investigation process. In such a situation, the Director could not decide upon the harassment allegations lodged against himself. Nor could he decide on the harassment allegations lodged against the four other officials. Indeed, the complainant did not report separate and independent harassing behaviours by each of the accused officials individually, but, rather, an orchestrated harassment against him and accused the Director of tolerating that harassment against him. Thus, the allegations against the Director and the four other officials were interconnected and, in deciding the allegations against the four officials, the Director might have had an interest in denying the harassment in order to shield himself from the allegation of having tolerated it. The Director should have recused himself from the whole case and not only from deciding upon the allegations against himself, which is what he did in his 12 November 2020 email, by which he delegated to the CIPM President the authority to decide upon only the allegations against himself.
The mere fact that the Director decided to close the case against the other four officials only after the CIPM President had closed the case against the Director, did not eliminate the conflict of interest. On the one hand, the Director’s failure to delegate the decision-making authority on the whole case to the CIPM President was unlawful. On the other hand, the CIPM President’s decision on the allegations against the Director was a decision open to challenge. Thus, for as long as the CIPM President’s decision was open to challenge, the Director maintained an interest in deciding the allegations against the other four officials in a way which would not negatively affect his personal position with regard to the related harassment allegations brought against him.
In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that the Director had a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw from the case completely. This alone casts doubt on the Director’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the Director would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. In brief, since the complainant reported an orchestrated harassment against him, the case should not have been split into two separate decisions; it should have been decided as one case in a single decision by the CIPM President. Accordingly, the decisions adopted by the Director […] are unlawful as they are tainted with a conflict of interest. […]
The Tribunal’s finding on the Director’s conflict of interest constitutes a decisive and fatal flaw in the impugned decision […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4234, 4240, 4616, 4617, 4711
Keywords:
conflict of interest; decision; decision-maker; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; decision-maker; harassment; recusal;
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of th[e] letter [in question] makes it plain that it was not intended to convey a decision taken by the Executive Director but by the Director-General himself, in a procedure commonly used in such cases at the ILO and, mutatis mutandis, in many other international organisations. The matter of whether the power to sign this letter had been granted is therefore irrelevant and the plea must be dismissed in accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law in this matter (see, for example, Judgments 4291, considerations 17 and 18, 3352, consideration 7, and 2836, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 3352, 4291
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegation of power; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4139
128th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although neither these provisions nor the other rules governing the staff of the Global Fund clearly specify the authority competent to decide, prior to such a termination of contract, to abolish a post with the likelihood that a termination will ensue, it is clear that this authority can only be, in accordance with the case law cited above, the Executive Director himself, by virtue of the general authority conferred upon him as the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
decision-maker; executive head;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Global Fund maintains [...] that the Chief of the Executive Director’s management team was involved in dealing with the complainant’s situation. However, this would not be enough to establish that the decision in question was taken by the Executive Director himself.
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; decision-maker; judicial review; reassignment; report;
Judgment 3177
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to refuse to promote him to grade P-5.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"The complainant alleges first that the Director-General did not properly delegate the authority to make the final decision at issue. The impugned decision was signed by the Director ad interim of HRM and not the Director-General.
This is not a question of delegation of authority. Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the authorised decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision. In Judgment 2028, relied on by the complainant, the decision was flawed because no evidence was adduced that the person with authority had actually made the decision or properly delegated it (see Judgment 2028, under 8(3)). It is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself."
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; general principle;
Judgment 3161
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him which, in his view, violates his status as an employee.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"[T]he task of the Internal Appeals Committee is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made. While provisions establishing an internal appeal committee or board may limit its functions, this is not the case in relation to this Internal Appeals Committee established under the Service Regulations applying to the permanent employees of the EPO.
Of course the authority of the Internal Appeals Committee is limited to making recommendations and, to that extent, the ultimate decision-making power remains, in a case such as the present, with the President of the Office. However, the President is obliged to give proper consideration to the recommendations of the Committee and not avoid addressing the reasoning of its members by wrongly indicating, as in this case, that the majority of the Committee’s members had exceeded the limits of their role in determining the appeal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; case law; decision; decision-maker; due process; duty to substantiate decision; general principle; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 2779
106th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has found, even though he was not competent to make the representation, Mr [...] made a promise to the complainant that his appointment would be extended beyond statutory retirement age. Mr R. also fostered the complainant's false belief that the promise would be honoured. Despite the complainant's numerous requests over a period of approximately 18 months clearly explaining his belief that a promise had been made, the Secretary-General chose to ignore the opportunities to correct the complainant's misapprehensions and permitted him to act on his mistaken belief. Lastly, the Secretary-General failed to make a decision on the complainant's request for an extension in a timely fashion. This conduct constitutes a breach of the duty to respect the complainant's dignity. At the very least, the Secretary-General should have notified the complainant that the Union did not accept the obligation when the matter was first brought to his attention. This conduct has caused the complainant moral injury for which he must be compensated in the form of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; decision-maker; duration of appointment; extension beyond retirement age; good faith; injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; promise; respect for dignity; retirement; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has on numerous occasions ruled on the issue of whether an international organisation is bound to comply with general provisions that would infringe the rights of its staff members. The fact that an international organisation belongs to the common system does not enable it to decline or limit its own responsibility towards the members of its staff or lessen the degree of judicial protection it owes them. Any organisation that introduces elements of the common system into its own rules has a duty to ensure that the texts it thereby imports are lawful (on this issue, see Judgment 1265, which refers to Judgments 382 and 825; for more recent examples concerning the duties of the FAO, see Judgments 1713 and 2303). Whilst the Tribunal fully appreciates the difficulties - emphasised by the defendant - that international organisations are liable to face in departing from the salary scales adopted on the basis of ICSC recommendations, it is nevertheless bound to ensure that international law is observed in the relations between the said organisations and their staff, regardless of the external authority from which the decisions taken emanate. Indeed, the case of an organisation having to revise salary scales resulting from recommendations or decisions affecting the common system, whether or not pursuant to a ruling by the competent tribunal, is not without precedent."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1265, 1713, 2303
Keywords:
adjustment; case law; criteria; decision-maker; icsc decision; liability; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director-General. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. Being 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 if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 2114
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2040
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has held in many judgments, a decision by an international organisation to make an appointment is a discretionary one and as such is subject to only limited review. It may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases and will not replace the organisation's assessment of the candidates with its own (see Judgment 1497 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1969
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal will quash [...] a decision [of a discretionary nature] only if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
