Advisory body (81,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Advisory body
Total judgments found: 103
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 5149
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue him with a written reprimand.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal has consistently stated, as it recalled in consideration 5 of Judgment 5003, for example, that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning the Tribunal’s limited power of review and not to that of an internal appeal body. This, according to the Tribunal, is because internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged, and that, ordinarily, the task of internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made as its power extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions, which restriction is not provided for in the FAO’s rules. This error of law by the Appeals Committee is sufficient basis for setting aside the impugned decision without it being necessary to consider other grounds.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
advisory body; case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; due process; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 5135
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her request that the Director, Human Resources Management, recuse himself from any involvement in her appeals due to an alleged conflict of interest; the decision to maintain the composition of the Joint Administrative Review Board panel constituted to review her internal appeals; and the decision to reject her request for direct appeal to the Tribunal.
Consideration 3
Extract:
More specifically, regarding the opinions of internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that these are internal steps in the process leading to final decisions and cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4978, consideration 9, 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 5, 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6)The rationale underlying this case law, which characterizes advisory opinions of internal appeal bodies as mere internal steps, applies all the more to decisions rendered during the course of an internal appeal process concerning specific procedural requests from the parties, such as those for hearings, recusal of panel members, or disclosure of documents. Concerning, more particularly, requests for recusal, the Tribunal has underlined, in consideration 3 of Judgment 4570, rendered on the complainant’s second complaint, that “a decision concerning the composition of an internal body is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal, but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision. As such, it may be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the decision to be taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure” (see also Judgments 4297, consideration 7, and 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4131, 4297, 4392, 4570, 4637, 4721, 4791, 4978
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; final decision; internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
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 5003
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] […] misconceived its role as, in its 25 October 2021 recommendations, it refused to reweigh the evidence and to assess the facts. It stated:
“According to [...] Judgment 3593, consideration 12, it is not the role of an appellate body to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. Owing deference to the investigative body, the appellate body should only interfere in the case of manifest error. The Panel was satisfied that the IOS [r]eport discussed, under each incident, all the evidence received and found, including the [complainant]’s answers to the investigator’s questions. The Panel was of the view that an on-site visit by IOS might have been advisable.
The Tribunal’s precedent quoted by the GBA concerns the role of the Tribunal, not the role of the internal appeal bodies. On the contrary, with regard to the role of the internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that an appeal body is wrong, when defining its own competence, to rely on the Tribunal’s case law concerning its limited power of review. Internal appeal bodies are not administrative courts whose sole responsibility in principle is to review the lawfulness of decisions which are challenged (see, for example, Judgments 3161, consideration 5, and 3077, consideration 3). Indeed, ordinarily, the task of the internal appeal bodies is to determine whether the decision under appeal is the correct decision or whether, based on the facts, some other decision should be made (see Judgment 3161, consideration 6). The power of internal appeal bodies extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to them and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions (see Judgment 3318, consideration 5). The internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition, their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation, and the broad investigative powers granted to them. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, they gather the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof (see Judgment 3423, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3161, 3318, 3423, 3593
Keywords:
advisory body; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In this regard, in the first place, the complainant takes issue with the fact that the Appraisals Committee, established from 1 January 2015 by Article 110a of the Service Regulations, does not include a staff representative, unlike the Internal Appeals Committee which had until then been responsible for dealing with challenges to appraisal reports. However, the Tribunal has already held that this characteristic does not mean that the composition of the new body is inadequate (see Judgments 4795, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 11, and 4257, consideration 13). This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637, 4795
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has already ruled, in relation to the objection procedure applicable to appraisals of other permanent employees of the Office, which shares these same features mutatis mutandis, that the fact that no staff representatives were included on the Appraisals Committee competent to review the appraisal reports of those other employees did not mean that the Committee’s composition was inadequate, and the fact that the Committee’s mandate was confined to determining whether such reports were arbitrary or discriminatory was legally admissible (see Judgments 4637, considerations 11 and 13, and 4257, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4257, 4637
Keywords:
advisory body; performance report; rating; staff representative;
Judgment 4749
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment with compensation in lieu of notice.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]n opinion of a disciplinary committee that rests on a balanced and thoughtful analysis and contains justified and rational conclusions and recommendations warrants considerable deference (see Judgment 3969, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; judicial review;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant’s claims concerning the report of the Compensation Committee as such must be dismissed as irreceivable since the opinion issued by an advisory body of that kind is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the decision taken on the basis of that opinion and does not itself cause injury to the complainant (see, for example, Judgment 4464, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4464
Keywords:
administrative decision; advisory body;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1752, consideration 6, the Compensation Committee “is just an advisory body, not a court of law” and that the safeguards offered by the rules governing its workings should be assessed in the light of the requirements applicable to such a body.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1752
Keywords:
advisory body; medical board;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that [the] requirement of consultation was all the more important given that the composition of the Invalidity Committee – which, under article 10.4 of the Staff Regulations, includes a medical practitioner appointed by the official concerned, another medical practitioner appointed in agreement with the first medical practitioner, and a member appointed by the Staff Union Committee – constituted a safeguard for the complainant that was not provided by the composition of the multidisciplinary team, which was made up solely of persons appointed by the Organization.
The fact referred to by the Organization in its submissions, that the secretary of the Invalidity Committee had informed the complainant in the email forwarding the report of 6 February 2017 to her that “[t]he procedure before the Invalidity Committee [was] now complete” and that “any decision taken following that report [would] be communicated to [her] directly by the Administration”, did not prevent the further consultation of that body that was thus required. The inclusion of these statements, which are standard formulations used when communicating such reports, plainly could not prevent the Invalidity Committee from exercising its authority if the multidisciplinary team failed in its task of identifying a suitable position.
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; invalidity;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 8-13
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, in keeping with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, when a text provides for the consultation of a body representing the staff before the adoption of a decision, the competent authority must follow that procedure, otherwise its decision will be unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 3883, under 20, 3671, under 4, and 1488, under 10). [...]
In accordance with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Secretary General had to abide by Staff Rule 25.1 and consult Senior Management officers about the non-extension of the complainant’s contract and the proposal to give him a Project Staff contract. Furthermore, their conclusions should have been recorded in writing, in accordance with that provision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1488, 3671, 3883
Keywords:
advisory body; patere legem;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Staff Rules 4.1 and 4.3 stipulate that the Secretary General must obtain the Staff Committee’s opinion before adopting his position. He is free to follow or to reject that opinion. He may criticise it and explain why he cannot endorse it, but he cannot lawfully consult each staff member individually instead of consulting the properly constituted Staff Committee.
The evidence in the file also shows that town hall meetings were indeed held, but they cannot make up for the lack of a Staff Committee opinion or remedy a flaw relating to its consultation.
Keywords:
advisory body; patere legem;
Considerations 9 and 13
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, in keeping with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, when a text provides for the consultation of a body representing the staff before the adoption of a decision, the competent authority must follow that procedure, otherwise its decision will be unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 3883, under 20, 3671, under 4, and 1488, under 10). [...]
In accordance with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Secretary General had to abide by Staff Rule 25.1 and consult Senior Management officers about the non-extension of the complainant’s contract and the proposal to give her a Project Staff contract. Furthermore, their conclusions should have been recorded in writing, in accordance with that provision.
Keywords:
advisory body; patere legem;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Disciplinary Committee’s opinion in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the disciplinary proceedings and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is an opinion of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; judicial review;
Judgment 3944
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the case law established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment without his or her consent 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 her or him to stay on. In order to decide whether there may have been a breach of an acquired right, it is therefore necessary to determine whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgment 3571, under 7). In this case, the Tribunal considers that the abolition of the Joint Advisory Committee does not affect a fundamental and essential term of employment. Moreover, it cannot generally be accepted that the rules on disciplinary action are an integral part of the fundamental and essential terms of employment which induce a person to apply for a post or to remain in the international civil service.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 986, 3571
Keywords:
acquired right; advisory body; disciplinary procedure; discontinuance;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 9
Extract:
While good management practice would suggest such consultation is desirable, the case law of the Tribunal which has insisted on consultation and set aside decisions where there has been none (see, for example, the discussion in Judgment 3883, considerations 20 to 21) has been rooted in a legal obligation imposed by a normative legal document (for example, a staff rule or regulation) that the organisation consult a specified body in a specified way (see, for example, Judgments 3736, consideration 7, and 3449, consideration 7). It will be the terms of the normative legal document that will provide the yardstick by reference to which the content of the obligation to consult will be measured and whether it has been satisfied. Insofar as the complainant alleges that there has been a failure to consult without pointing to any legal requirement for such consultation, he has no cause of action and, in this respect, the complaint is irreceivable. In this respect the complainant does not, as the Global Fund argues, point to any non-observance of the terms of his appointment or of the Staff Regulations, to use the language of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3449, 3736, 3883
Keywords:
advisory body; cause of action; patere legem; staff representative;
Judgment 3736
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the ITU’s decision to change its medical insurance scheme and to increase their premiums under this insurance scheme.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]n keeping with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, when a text provides for the consultation of a body representing the staff before the adoption of a decision, the competent authority must follow that procedure, otherwise its decision will be unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 1488, under 10, and 3671, under 4). In this case, it has been established that the ITU did not consult the Staff Council on the disputed service order. The Council representatives’ participation in the […] working group, on which the defendant organisation relies, was not a valid substitute for the consultation of the Council as such.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1488, 3671
Keywords:
advisory body; patere legem;
Judgment 3621
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two appointments of the President of the Office to the Internal Appeals Committee on the grounds that they were not preceded by consultation of the General Advisory Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; complaint dismissed; consultation; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3534
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The two complainants, who were members of the General Advisory Committee, contest the nomination of the Chairman of the Committee for the year 2010.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder;
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 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3216
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
