Financial considerations (833,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Financial considerations
Total judgments found: 7

• 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;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  It is well-established case law that an organisation has a duty to explore possible options or to make reasonable efforts for the reassignment of a staff member whose post has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 4097, consideration 9, and 2902, consideration 14). In consideration 16 of Judgment 3908, the Tribunal stated that, while it has long recognized the right of an international organization to abolish positions, which will imperil the continuing employment of the occupants of those abolished positions, a concomitant of that right is an obligation to deal fairly with the staff who occupy those abolished positions. This obligation extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organization for which those staff have the experience and qualifications.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3908, 4097
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; duty of care; financial considerations; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [I]t was stated in Judgment 4935, consideration 21:
  “Historically, the Tribunal generally considered the extent of an organization’s duty to reassign staff members whose positions were abolished mainly in relation to the type of contract they held, the nature of the post and/or the role to which they were assigned, their length of service with the organization, and recognized a greater duty in respect of staff who held permanent positions (see, for example, Judgment 3754, consideration 16). Nonetheless, in consideration 10 of Judgment 4097, the Tribunal stated that it does not follow that other classes of staff of differing status should be afforded no protection by principles it has developed in circumstances where their post is abolished and attempts are being made to reassign them.”
  The Tribunal is cognizant of the nature of the IOM’s funding structure as a project-based organization. This is significant, among other things, in that the employment of a large number of staff members is linked to the duration of the specific projects for which they are engaged (see Judgment 4935, consideration 23).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3754, 4097, 4935
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; duty of care; financial considerations; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5082

  
  140th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the increase in employees’ contribution rate to the healthcare insurance scheme.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The complainant’s reliance on his acquired rights is misplaced. The abolition of the 2.4 per cent ceiling was part of a broader reform transforming the EPO’s health insurance from a pay-as-you-go scheme to a funded scheme, due to financial reasons.

  Keywords:

  acquired right; financial considerations; health insurance;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4937

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and to terminate her contract.

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  The JARB stated, in its report, that having studied the financial calculations the complainant and the Administration presented, it established that there was a projected deficit in the funding for the Support Unit by the end of the UAE’s chairmanship of the GFMD; that by the end of January 2021, no financial commitment was in place which could have formed the basis of a new decision about the future of the Support Unit and its staff members and there was no legitimate reason for IOM itself to allocate funds to the Unit. The JARB also noted, among other things, that the MOU between IOM and the GFMD stated that “IOM will not be responsible for securing the necessary contributions to the [Support Unit]”. The JARB found, among other things, that IOM discontinued support services to the GFMD as of 1 February 2021, which supports IOM’s position that the financial factors it had advanced were the reasons for abolishing the Support Unit. It referred to the Administration’s response to its question that no services were provided by IOM to the GFMD between 1 February 2021 and 25 May 2021 and that, after protracted negotiations, a temporary arrangement was put in place from 1 July 2021 for IOM to provide minimal secretarial services to the GFMD, on a greatly reduced scale when compared to the functions previously provided by the Support Unit. It stated that it was satisfied with IOM’s explanation that the interim arrangements did not replace the Support Unit. The JARB concluded that it was satisfied that IOM had done the necessary due diligence to verify the status of the funding of the Support Unit and that, contrary to the complainant’s submission, financial reasons for the abolition of her position were genuine and legitimate and did not constitute an error of fact.
  The Tribunal determines that, on the record in these proceedings, this conclusion, accepted in the impugned decision, was open to the JARB. The complainant’s submissions to the contrary are therefore unfounded. In the main, her supporting arguments reflect her subjective view as to the availability of funds to continue to fund the Support Unit and her post. By extension, the complainant’s contention that IOM could have avoided the abolition of the Support Unit and her position, including by itself providing their funding from its own resources or otherwise is unfounded, particularly having regard to the administrative arrangements governing the complainant’s employment as mentioned in consideration 2. By extension as well, the complainant’s submissions that the subject decisions were taken in abuse of authority motivated by the Administration’s desire to remove her in the absence of a lawful reason to do so and the decisions were based on inaccurate facts, influenced by misleading information evidenced in the subsequent reestablishment of the same post are also unfounded. It is of no moment whether, even as the complainant states to support her plea of abuse of authority, IOM provided interim services, comparable to the services the Support Unit provided, from 2021 to 2022 and established a permanent GFMD Secretariat in 2023 in which it maintained a position “comparable [to] if not alike” her position after the termination of her appointment. The clear evidence is that the Support Unit, and, relatedly, her position, were abolished on objective grounds. As IOM points out, the interim services were not a new structure to which Support Unit staff members could have been transferred and the submission ignores the lapse in time between the abolition of Support Unit and her post in January 2021; the formal establishment of the GFMD Secretariat in February 2023 and the assumption of functions by the Head of that Secretariat in March 2023. Against this background, the complainant’s submission that the decisions were unnecessary is unmeritorious.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; financial considerations;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; financial considerations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4844

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  In its reply, the Organization asks the Tribunal to order the joinder of these two complaints, on the grounds that the two internal appeals lodged by the complainant against the initial decisions [...] were joined by order of the Joint Appeals Committee, that the two complaints are “inseparably” linked and that joining them would allow savings to be made on the management costs that would be incurred if the Tribunal were to deal with the cases separately.
  The complainant states that he is strongly opposed to this request for joinder, contending in particular that, “in advocating a joinder of cases before the Tribunal on economic grounds”, the Organization breaches its own rules concerning the joinder of internal appeals, causes delays to the appeal procedure and adversely affects the right of appeal, both administrative and contentious, by making the conditions for the exercise of that right more stringent.
  The Tribunal recalls its case law, according to which, in principle, the touchstone for the joinder of complaints is that they involve the same or similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events (see Judgment 4753, consideration 6). Recently, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the cost of judgments is an irrelevant consideration in that regard (see Judgment 4822, consideration 4).
  In the present case, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is a certain connection between the decision to suppress the complainant’s post [...] and the decision to terminate his appointment when it was not possible to reassign him thereafter. However, the decisions in question are different in nature, the legal context for each is, in part, individual, and the fundamental issues raised are different. It must also be noted that the two decisions are not entirely interdependent, since a measure taken to suppress a post could be followed by a reassignment decision, the outcome of which would be completely different from a termination of appointment. It is irrelevant in this respect that the Joint Appeals Committee, acting within its own prerogative, considered it appropriate to join the two internal appeals that had been referred to it.
  For these reasons, the Tribunal will not order that the two complaints be joined in the light of the aforementioned case law.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753, 4822
  

  Keywords:

  financial considerations; joinder;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4822

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The Organisation asked that the two complaints be joined because it considers that they rest on the same facts and originate from the same decision of 29 January 2020. But, while it is true that the facts in each of these complaints are part of a same continuum of events, the legal issues raised in each of them are different. The two complaints also do not pertain to the same impugned decision. The provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations involved are furthermore not the same, and the processes that led to the impugned decisions identified by the complainant were not the same either. Finally, the reasons developed by the parties, notably on the issues of receivability, are different from one complaint to the other.
  Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined. But, if necessary, the Tribunal will refer to the two judgments to avoid any potential overlapping.
  In this regard, the Tribunal observes that one of the motivations for the request for joinder of the Organisation is pecuniary. In the proceedings it filed in the second complaint, ESO mentioned that a joinder “would absolve [the Organisation] from having to pay twice the Tribunal’s substantial court expenses irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”.
  The starting point in dealing with this issue is whether the cost to the organisation is a relevant consideration in determining whether there should be joinder. The principles applied by the Tribunal on the general issue of joinder have developed over a period of more than 45 years. As discussed in Judgment 4753, consideration 3:
  “Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.”
  And later in consideration 6:
  “The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. [...]”
  The cost to the organisation of multiple judgments has no part to play in the exercise of the discretionary power concerning joinder. It is an irrelevant consideration.
  Additionally, while ESO pleads that having only one judgment would protect the Organisation “against the cost[s] and administrative demands of unnecessary litigation issues”, the Tribunal cannot ignore that ESO itself acknowledged that “it is the law of its Staff Rules and Regulations which provide that different procedures apply for challenging the Director General’s decisions not to grant [the] complainant an indefinite contract and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond the one year granted”. In other words, there are two different and separate complaints filed not because of unnecessary litigation issues raised by the complainant, but because of the way the Staff Rules and Regulations of ESO are organized.
  That said, the Tribunal notes, however, that, while arguing that the submission of two complaints was not chosen by him since he had no other alternative than to follow the procedural paths imposed by the Organisation, the complainant still disputes the assertion of ESO that it should not “be punished twice for the same conduct”. As a result, he maintained the separate claims for relief sought in both complaints even though there was clearly some overlapping between the two. Conceding there was indeed some overlapping here would have been the expected and logical position to adopt on the part of the complainant. It is regrettable to see that he did not do so.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
  

  Keywords:

  financial considerations; joinder;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3135

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 25

  Extract:

  [T]he fact that the amendment of this term of employment was prompted by financial considerations does not in itself make it unlawful (see, for example, [...] Judgments 832, 2682 and 2986).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 2682, 2986
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; financial considerations;