Executive head (549,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Executive head
Total judgments found: 218
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 5155
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to select her for the position of Head of the WHO Office in Dakar, Senegal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The second matter concerns the complainant’s request for an order that she “be selected for the post of [Head of Office] in Senegal”. The Tribunal is not competent to make such an order. Pursuant to its case law, recalled in consideration 2 of this judgment, it is within the purview of the Director-General, and not within that of the Tribunal, to appoint her or any other staff member to a post.
Keywords:
appointment; competence; competence of tribunal; executive head; order; selection procedure;
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 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 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 5104
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject as time-barred her compensation claim for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]n his decision of 9 March 2022, the Director-General accepted the unanimous recommendation made by the JAAB in its report […] and, therefore, the views of the JAAB should have been considered by the Compensation Committee in its new consideration of the complainant’s compensation claim, but they were not. The JAAB’s detailed reasoning on what was the starting point for calculating the six-month time limit for the submission of her compensation claim spanned a little over three pages of factual and legal analysis. It culminated with a conclusion that a diagnosis made […] in December 2019 could serve as a starting point for the timeframe for the complainant filing a compensation claim. Given the history of the matter, it was clearly incumbent on the majority of the members of the Compensation Committee to explain why they did not accept, and, in fact, rejected, the JAAB’s analysis or, at least, why it was open to them to draw the unfavourable inference they did, in the face of the JAAB’s analysis.
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; illness; internal appeals body; recommendation; service-incurred; time limit;
Judgment 4935
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to abolish his position and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency or to make budgetary savings international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see, for example, Judgment 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4004, consideration 2). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3582, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3238, 3582, 4004
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; reorganisation;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that a 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, Judgment 4654, consideration 16). However, under the Tribunal’s case law applicable to contractual relationships generally, a decision not to renew a contract must be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones (see, for example, Judgments 4495, consideration 15, 3769, consideration 7, 3353, consideration 15, and 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3353, 3769, 4495, 4654
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Board carefully analysed, in detail and over several pages, the evidence concerning the factual question of whether there had been notification to the complainant. It observed, correctly, that the burden of proof that notification had been given fell on the person who sent the document, in this case the Organization, citing Judgment 3871, consideration 9. Its analysis and conclusion that the Organization had not proved that notification had been given is unexceptionable and certainly does not reveal a manifest error. In the impugned decision of 23 August 2021, the Director General accepted the pivotal significance of the factual question about notification. […] [The Director General] challenged the reasoning of the Appeal Board. But, in the face of that reasoning, his analysis is unpersuasive.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; executive head; medical opinion; notification;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant […] requests that the Tribunal order that the new disciplinary measure to be imposed, if any, be limited to a lesser one than that which the Director-General imposed in his original decision of 8 May 2018, pursuant to the principle of double jeopardy. The Tribunal does not have the power to make orders of this kind, nor can it limit in such a way the discretion of the Director-General to determine the appropriate disciplinary measures, if any, to be imposed, in the event that misconduct is established.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; order; proportionality;
Judgment 4738
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider him not eligible for the appointment of Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat for a mandate starting in January 2022.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head;
Judgment 4737
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.
Consideration 4
Extract:
A clear indicator of the status of the Secretary-General as an official, is that he or she is part of the Secretariat performing duties described in [Article 35(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty] (and elsewhere in the Treaty), namely providing the Charter Conference with all necessary assistance for the performance of its duties and entering “administrative and contractual arrangements”.
The organisation relies on other normative legal documents to argue the complainant is not an official. But the relevant legal question is not whether the Secretary-General is an official for the purposes of those rules, but whether he is for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal is satisfied he is.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; executive head; official;
Consideration 13
Extract:
It is true that the terms on which [the complainant] was initially appointed expressly, in his letter of appointment, recognised his right to have protected any acquired right. But the relevant question is whether a right to repeatedly reapply for the position was an acquired right which could not be altered. The Tribunal’s case law recognises that international civil servants’ conditions of employment existing at the time of recruitment are not immutable and need not, of necessity, be applied to them throughout their careers (see, for example, Judgment 4465, considerations 5 to 8). The Tribunal is not satisfied that an unconstrained right to reapply for the position of Secretary-General meets the criteria of an acquired right identified in, for example, Judgment 4195, consideration 7.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195, 4465
Keywords:
acquired right; appointment; executive head;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The organisation contends that the Tribunal is not competent to hear this complaint for two reasons. The first which should be addressed is the argument that the complainant was not an “official” of the organisation for the purposes of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. The organisation relies in part on the terms on which it recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as contemplated by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute. The terms of recognition can be a relevant consideration in determining the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2232, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; executive head; official;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he organisation [contends] that the decision not to launch the reappointment procedure, which was made by the Conference, was a bare political decision that is not open to judicial review. But the Tribunal notes that the decision was not entirely political but indirectly raised the question of the application of the conditions in the rules for appointment of the Secretary-General and had a direct legal adverse effect on the complainant, an international civil servant. The observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2232, consideration 10, are apt to apply:
"a decision terminating the appointment of an international civil servant prior to the expiry of his/her term of office is an administrative decision, even if it is based on political considerations. The fact that it emanates from the Organisation's highest decision-making body cannot exempt it from the necessary review applying to all individual decisions which are alleged to be in breach of the terms of an appointment or contract, or of statutory provisions".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; competence of tribunal; executive head;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The limitation on reapplication [to the position of Secretary-General] was to operate in the future and, in terms, was to operate on the “serving” Secretary-General. Thus, it was, in terms, to apply in the future to anyone with that status. While the complainant acquired that status (by way of reappointment) on the same day the amendment took legal effect, the amendment creating the limitation on reapplying could and would, on its face, apply at the expiration of the term of the complainant’s reappointment. It is the combined effect of the historical fact that the complainant had been reappointed once to the position in 2016, effective 1 January 2017, together with his status as Secretary-General after the amendment came into effect, that engaged the amendment.
Moreover, the purpose of the amendment is clear. It was to eliminate the possibility that a serving Secretary-General could, by repeated reappointments flowing from repeated reapplications, remain in the position for a very lengthy period of time. Its purpose was to ensure finite periods of occupation of the position rather than open-ended periods.
Keywords:
appointment; executive head; retroactivity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;
Judgment 4370
131st Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to retire him at the end of the month in which he reached the age of 62, even though he had not completed the five years of contributions required for the payment of a retirement pension by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t should be borne in mind that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of the organisation exercises wide discretion and which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3884, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3884
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age;
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:
[T]he fact, also relied on by the defendant, that the Executive Director had dismissed the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the Head of the Human Resources Department – which he could only have done by disavowing the latter and putting the organization in a delicate position – did not imply that he would necessarily have taken the same initial decision that she had.
Keywords:
delegated authority; executive head; internal appeal;
Judgment 4089
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285
Keywords:
age limit; competence of tribunal; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review; retirement;
Judgment 4084
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant contends that, contrary to Staff Regulation 4.3(a), her transfer was not in the best interest of WIPO and that no consideration was given to her interests. The Tribunal has consistently stated that what is in the interest of an organization should be left to the organization to decide (see Judgment 2105, under 17) and that greater caution must be shown before interfering with such decisions because the executive head must ordinarily be deemed to be the best judge of what the interests of the organization are (see Judgment 1050, under 4, and Judgment 3193, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1050, 2105, 3193
Keywords:
executive head; organisation's interest;
Judgment 4062
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, or 3830, considerations 6 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly observed, and recently done so in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, that: “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3863
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3312
117th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In Judgment 2495, under 9(b), the Tribunal held that in taking a decision at the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, an Executive Head, such as the Registrar, is not bound by the recommendations of a disciplinary board. The Registrar may depart from them if another solution is considered to be more appropriate to ensure the satisfactory running of the Organization. The Tribunal will not substitute its assessment for that of the Registrar, unless it notes a clear disproportion between the gravity of the offence committed and the severity of the penalty imposed by the Registrar. However, a Registrar who departs from a recommendation of a board, as in this case, must state the reasons for disregarding it. One purpose which is served by this requirement to give reasons is to enable the Tribunal to evaluate whether the decision is proportionate in the event that the decision is challenged in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2391, under 8). In this case, the Registrar motivated her decision for departing from the recommendation of the DAB, but gave insufficiently cogent reasons for issuing the reprimand and warnings to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2391, 2495
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; executive head;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[A] provision [...], which grants the executive head of an organisation the power to propose that another organ adopt a decision, authorises that person to refrain from making such a proposal if he or she sees no reason for it (see Judgment 585, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 585
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; proposal; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
