Limits (550,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Limits
Total judgments found: 173
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 5130
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract further to the abolition of his position due to budgetary constraints.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it was based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4503
Keywords:
career; decision; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has further held that its role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgments 4953, consideration 4, 4834, consideration 2, and 3367, consideration 11). As explained in Judgment 3163, consideration 8, and reiterated in Judgments 4953, consideration 23, and 4834, consideration 9, it is necessary for the complainant to establish that “the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3163, 3367, 4834, 4953
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; material error; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 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 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;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal also recalls its well-established case law regarding its limited power of review of decisions relating to performance evaluations. As stated in Judgment 4267, consideration 4, “assessment of merit is an exercise that involves a value judgement, signifying that persons may quite reasonably hold different views on the matter in issue. Moreover, because of the nature of a value judgement, the grounds on which a decision involving a judgement of that kind may be reviewed are limited to those applicable to discretionary decisions. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3006, consideration 7, and 3062, consideration 3) [...]”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006, 3062, 4267
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; performance; performance evaluation; performance report;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 8
Extract:
With respect to decisions pertaining to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, the Tribunal has also emphasized the limited scope of the review it can exercise. In Judgment 4146, consideration 3, it stated, in particular, the following:
“The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 5).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772, 4146
Keywords:
fixed-term; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
With respect to decisions relating to performance evaluation, the Tribunal has emphasized that it has a limited power of review. For instance, in Judgment 4666, consideration 4, it recalled the following:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).” (See also Judgments 4713, consideration 11, and 4564, consideration 3.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543, 4564, 4666, 4713
Keywords:
judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; performance; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4144
128th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “partly satisfactory” overall rating in his performance evaluation report.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Finally, the Tribunal deals with the plea under (h) according to which the complainant’s 2016 PER was flawed as he did not have a specific job description on the basis of which his performance could be assessed, as provided for in Staff Rule 105.1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Organization should have a specific job description for each post and that the performance should be evaluated on the basis of the duties and responsibilities as set forth in the job description, but it also notes that a general job classification standard, approved by the Director-General, exists. Indeed, Staff Rule 107.3 provides that “[t]he duties and responsibilities of each post in grades 1-12 inclusive shall be evaluated on the basis of job classification standards approved by the Director-General”. The complainant’s 2016 performance was evaluated based on the job classification standard for his post and grade and on the work objectives indicated by the supervisor. Moreover his underperformance, relating mostly to his interactions with his colleagues and supervisors, was not linked to the performance of specific duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the JAB’s finding that the absence of a comprehensive job description and/or specific benchmarks in this case does not constitute a procedural flaw affecting the lawfulness of the 2016 PER is correct.
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the case law of the Tribunal, a decision on a request for special leave is discretionary (see, for example, Judgment 2262, consideration 2). Considering the discretion afforded to international organizations to take such decisions, such a decision is subject to only limited review and can be set aside only if it has been taken without authority or in breach of the rules of form or procedure, if it is based on an error of fact or law or has overlooked essential facts, if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts or if there is an abuse of authority (see Judgements 1929, consideration 5, and 2619, consideration 5). In this case, the Director did not exceed the limits of her discretionary authority, which the Tribunal must respect in exercising its limited power of review over such matters.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929, 2262, 2619
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; special leave;
Judgment 4004
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his appeal against the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment, which was filed after he had accepted a mutually agreed separation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Firm precedent has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal 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 organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 2742, under 34, and 2933, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2933
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; limits;
Judgment 3929
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). 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 Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). 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 Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;
Judgment 3582
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment following the abolition of her position.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). 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 Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; limits;
Judgment 3273
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place his post in a certain grade group following an allegedly flawed assessment process.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently confirmed that an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
Judgment 3268
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the establishment of a staff report containing negative comments.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; limits; performance report; rating;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3156
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, who are former staff representatives, unsuccessfully challenge decisions which, in their view, constituted violations of the right of staff representation.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Since organisations must prevent [any] abuse of the right of free speech [enjoyed by bodies representing the staff], the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by [such] bodies [...]. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message."
Keywords:
bias; breach; collective rights; condition; facilities; flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; refusal; right; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The law of defamation is not concerned solely with the question whether a statement is defamatory in the sense that it injures a person’s reputation or tarnishes his or her good name. It is also concerned with the question whether the statement was made in circumstances that afford a defence. Broadly speaking, the defences to a claim in defamation mark out the boundaries of permissible debate and discussion. As a general rule, a statement, even if defamatory in the sense indicated, will not result in liability in defamation if it was made in response to criticism by the person claiming to have been defamed or if it was made in the course of the discussion of a matter of legitimate interest to those to whom the statement was published and, in either case, the extent of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances."
Keywords:
freedom of speech; liability; limits; mitigating circumstances; moral injury; publication; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3074
112th Session, 2012
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
[M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal relevantly provides that it is competent to hear complaints 'alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the [applicable] Staff Regulations'. The real question raised by this complaint is whether those words extend to decisions taken with respect to the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal. The complainant points to nothing in the Staff Regulations limiting the right of [the Organization] to choose the manner in which it may defend proceedings brought against it by an official. And although the Tribunal accepts that various international norms and other general legal principles form part of an official's terms of appointment, it would be inconsistent with fundamental legal principles and incompatible with the role of the Tribunal to import a term which impinged on the right of an international organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal, whether by way of evidence or argument or by way of communication with the Tribunal relating to the proceedings. It follows that the complaint is not one 'alleging non-observance [...] of the [complainant's] terms of appointment [or] the [applicable] provisions of the Staff Regulations' and, thus, is not one that the Tribunal is competent to hear."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; competence; competence of tribunal; evidence; general principle; iloat; iloat statute; limits; organisation; right; submissions;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
