Discretion (547, 548, 549, 550, 551,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Discretion
Total judgments found: 668
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, 32, 33, 34 | next >
Judgment 5187
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a Board of Appeal member, challenges his transposition to a new grade with effect from 1 January 2017.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Il ressort [...] du dossier que les nouvelles règles, [..], résultant de la décision CA/D 8/16 visaient à renforcer l’indépendance des membres des chambres de recours, à simplifier le régime de carrière applicables à ceux-ci et à assurer la cohérence de ce régime avec les principes du nouveau système de carrière issu de la décision CA/D 10/14. De tels objectifs ne sauraient être regardés comme déraisonnables. En outre, il convient de relever que, si le requérant soutient que certaines des dispositions adoptées n’auraient pas été pertinentes au regard de ces objectifs, le dossier ne fait pas apparaître que celles-ci aient procédé d’un abus de la liberté d’appréciation reconnue à l’Organisation dans ce domaine [...].
Keywords:
career; change of rules; discretion; organisation's interest;
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 5166
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel the promotion exercise for 2020.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; condition; discretion; promotion; right;
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 34
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion is exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3971, consideration 17, 3944, consideration 12, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11). A staff member’s lengthy service and recognised professional abilities and previous good record are not, by themselves, mitigating factors (see Judgment 4859, consideration 28), even though in some cases they can be (see Judgments 4949, consideration 26, 4457, consideration 20, and 3083, consideration 20). […] “[I]n determining the appropriate sanction in the specific circumstances of this case, the complainant’s unblemished service over more than 20 years should have been weighed more as a mitigating factor (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20), rather than as an aggravating factor.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3083, 3640, 3944, 3971, 4247, 4457, 4504, 4660, 4859, 4949
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 5148
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 not to select her for a G-5 position.
Consideration 4
Extract:
“The Director-General retains the discretion to make the final decision from among the recommended candidates, but this discretion must be exercised within the legal framework and with due regard to equal treatment […].”
Keywords:
discretion; equal treatment; selection procedure;
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 5136
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for the Voluntary Departure Programme.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant’s submissions that his departure would have resulted in significant financial savings for Interpol and would have been in Interpol’s organizational interest and replacement needs, are his personal opinions. The determination of these matters falls within the discretionary authority of the Secretary General and the Tribunal discerns no error in the exercise thereof.
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; financial considerations; organisation's interest;
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.
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 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 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 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 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;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s position was not funded from a stable, regular budget line but from temporary funds. IOM retained the discretionary power to adjust allocations as operational needs required and was under no obligation to maintain a budget allocation that was no longer in the best interest of the Organization.
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; organisation's interest;
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;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“[A]n international organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment which is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff […]. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if taken without authority; if in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence […]. The Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited […].
[…] [A]n international organization has the duty to provide valid reasons for its non-renewal decision […]: ‘[…] a non-renewal decision must also be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones […]. Those reasons must also be communicated to the staff member concerned […], although they need not necessarily appear in the decision itself […].’
It is a firm principle established by the Tribunal’s case law that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member […].”
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5101
141st Session, 2026
International Center for the Registration of Serials
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
« [U]n fonctionnaire titulaire d’un [contrat de durée déterminée] ne peut pas se prévaloir d’un droit à son renouvellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4587, au considérant 19, et 3448, au considérant 7). La décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’engagement d’un fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint de la part du Tribunal. Elle ne peut être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, si elle viole une règle de forme ou de procédure, si elle repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, si son auteur a omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou a tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou si elle est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4877, au considérant 2, 4654, au considérant 16, 4172, au considérant 5, 2148, au considérant 23, ou 1052, au considérant 4). Par ailleurs, le rôle du Tribunal dans l’examen des décisions de non-renouvellement de contrats pour des raisons budgétaires est, par nature, limité (voir les jugements 4953, au considérant 4, 4834, au considérant 2, et 3367, au considérant 11). Il n’en reste pas moins que toute décision de non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement de durée déterminée doit reposer sur des raisons objectives et valables (voir, notamment, le jugement 4654, au considérant 16).»
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [I]l n’appartient pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qui est le sien en la matière, de se substituer à l’appréciation qui a été faite par la Directrice et le Conseil d’administration concernant les restrictions budgétaires nécessitant le non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante […] il n’incombe pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qu’il est appelé à exercer en la matière, de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle de la Directrice en recherchant s’il n’y avait pas d’autres alternatives financières possibles au non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante afin de faire face aux difficultés budgétaires que rencontrait le Centre. »
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 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 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 4
Extract:
Il est de jurisprudence constante que le chef exécutif d’une organisation internationale dispose, en règle générale, d’un large pouvoir d’appréciation lorsqu’il s’agit de procéder, dans l’intérêt de l’organisation, à l’affectation des membres de son personnel (voir, notamment, les jugements 4609, au considérant 4, et 4599, au considérant 19).
S’il est établi qu’au moment d’exercer son pouvoir d’appréciation en matière de transfert, le chef exécutif d’une organisation internationale ou l’autorité compétente à cet effet doit tenir compte à la fois des intérêts de celle-ci et des capacités et intérêts du fonctionnaire concerné lorsqu’ils sont contradictoires, il ou elle peut néanmoins accorder plus de poids aux intérêts de l’organisation (voir, par exemple, les jugements 2635, au considérant 6, et 325).
Du reste, celui qui accepte de devenir fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale qui a des lieux d’activité dans plusieurs endroits dans le monde, comme c’est le cas de l’UNESCO, doit naturellement compter avec la possibilité d’une affectation à un autre lieu de travail, ce que rappelle par ailleurs de manière expresse l’article 1.2 du Statut du personnel précité (comparer, à titre d’exemples, avec les jugements 1757, au considérant 15, et 1055, aux considérants 6 et 7). À cet égard, et comme l’a également rappelé le Tribunal, la question de l’éducation des enfants ne constitue pas, en soi, un obstacle insurmontable à une mutation d’un fonctionnaire international, pour autant que des aménagements raisonnables prennent en compte la situation familiale et les intérêts personnels du fonctionnaire concerné (voir, à ce sujet, le jugement 1250, au considérant 14) et le consentement exprès de l’intéressé n’est pas non plus requis (voir, à cet égard, le jugement 3581, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325, 1055, 1250, 1757, 2635, 3581, 4599, 4609
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; transfer;
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 5036
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he provision concerning home leave contained a clause that declared that '[a] staff member who has changed his/her residential status in such a way that he/she may, in the opinion of the Director General, be deemed to be a permanent resident of a country other than that of his/her nationality may lose or incur a change in his/her entitlement to home leave'. This element of the provision conferred a discretion in two respects. Firstly, a discretion was conferred on the Director General to 'deem' a staff member a permanent resident though, by necessary implication, there was a discretion not to deem a staff member a permanent resident. A multitude of considerations could potentially be relevant. The second element of discretion was that even if deemed a permanent resident, the staff member could either, as possible alternatives, lose an entitlement to home leave or incur a change in that entitlement. The provision does not expressly state who makes that assessment and on what basis though it is more likely than not, it is another discretionary power of some width, vested in the Director General.
Keywords:
discretion; home leave; interpretation; interpretation of rules; residence;
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 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;
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, 32, 33, 34 | next >
|
