Role of the Tribunal (925,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Role of the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 124
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 5159
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to end her service on the grounds of invalidity and to deduct from her invalidity allowance the contributions to the pension scheme.
Consideration 10
Extract:
«S’agissant du contrôle que peut exercer le Tribunal à l’égard d’une décision prise par une commission d’invalidité quant à l’origine professionnelle ou non d’une maladie, le Tribunal rappelle que les appréciations d’ordre médical échappent à sa compétence (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4905, au considérant 13). Toutefois, il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante que, si le Tribunal n’a pas qualité pour substituer sa propre appréciation à celle formulée par une commission statuant en matière médicale, telle une commission d’invalidité, il est en revanche pleinement compétent pour contrôler la régularité de la procédure suivie et pour examiner si l’avis rendu par cette commission est entaché d’erreur matérielle ou de contradiction, si celui-ci a négligé des faits essentiels ou s’il a tiré du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées (voir notamment les jugements 4904, au considérant 2, 4709, au considérant 4, 4585, au considérant 10, 4473, au considérant 13, 4237, au considérant 5, 3994, au considérant 5, 2996, au considérant 11, 2361, au considérant 9, et 1284, au considérant 4). Mais, notamment dans le jugement 4904, le Tribunal avait été mis en possession du dossier médical constitué par la commission d’invalidité et le fonctionnaire informé de la teneur des éléments d’ordre médical le concernant, ce qui, à ce jour, ne semble toujours pas être le cas en l’espèce.»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709, 4904, 4905
Keywords:
invalidity; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 24
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls its established case law concerning disciplinary matters. The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, 4491, consideration 19, and 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, and 4364, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4364, 4491, 4858
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5153
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
“[I]t is desirable to briefly discuss the Tribunal’s case law concerning the renewal of temporary contacts. A convenient summary of the overarching principles is found in Judgment 4877, consideration 2: ‘It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that the 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, Judgments 4654, consideration 16, 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, or 1052, consideration 4). That is, a fortiori, the situation in a case such as this where the dispute concerns the non-renewal of a temporary appointment which expressly stated that the appointee was not guaranteed any renewal or conversion of his contract into any other type of contract’[…]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 2148, 4172, 4654, 4877
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls that it is well established in its case law that it is not its role to re-evaluate the evidence in cases of harassment in the face of findings by 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 (see Judgment 4884, consideration 5), at least in the absence of demonstrated manifest error (see Judgments 4999, consideration 6, 4884, consideration 5, 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2). Also, an internal appeals body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where the report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational (see Judgment 4848, consideration 10) […] In essence, the question to be addressed is whether the complainant, in his pleas, has established a vitiating error [in the] investigation and report […] or by the Director-General in the exercise of his discretionary power to close the case (see Judgment 4999, considerations 5 to 7). The answer is that he has not.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597, 4091, 4344, 4848, 4884, 4999, 4999
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
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 3
Extract:
"[The Tribunal] exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. Accordingly, it will not interfere with such a decision unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts. However, as explained in Judgment 274, a warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; reprimand; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 5148
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a G-5 position.
Considerations 5, 12 and 13
Extract:
“[I]t is not [the Tribunal’s role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment […]. In a case where the selection of a successful candidate is challenged, the Tribunal stated [that] […] ‘[...] in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence […]. As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect […].’
In applying these principles, the Tribunal must therefore determine whether the complainant has demonstrated that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect that could have affected the outcome of the competition.
[…]
It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the competent selection body unless it is shown it committed a manifest error of assessment in rejecting the complainant’s application […] and, as recalled above, the appointing authority’s decision regarding the choice of the candidate is subject to only limited review […].
The Tribunal therefore concurs with the Appeals Committee’s conclusion that there was no serious defect in the selection process that impacted on the consideration and assessment of the complainant’s candidacy. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate […].”
Keywords:
role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 5147
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
“Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency, to make budgetary savings or if funding is no longer available, international organizations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules, and, in particular, the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see Judgments 4599, consideration 11, and 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of an organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions were taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rested upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4844, consideration 3, 4004, consideration 2, and 3582, consideration 6). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds, and its purpose should not be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 4353, consideration 6, and 3582, consideration 6). Moreover, a decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice, justification, and an opportunity to contest the decision. The Tribunal has further stated that the need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises precisely because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity to know and evaluate whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see Judgments 4937, consideration 2, 4935, consideration 4, 4353, consideration 7, 3928, consideration 15, and 3041, considerations 8 and 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041, 3238, 3582, 3928, 4004, 4353, 4599, 4844, 4935, 4937
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; organisation's duties; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5146
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the FAO’s decisions to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for misconduct, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations (UN) system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
“A right to an effective internal appeal is an important one. […] the role of an internal appeals body ordinarily involves a comprehensive review of the facts and, if appropriate, the consideration of fresh evidence. The complainant is entitled to an effective internal appeal, and the matter should be remitted to the FAO to enable his appeal to be heard by a freshly constituted Appeals Committee […]. The impugned decision should be set aside though, in the absence of an order of reinstatement, setting aside the impugned decision does not lead to the complainant’s re-engagement as a staff member of the Organization.
Whatever the outcome of the present dispute, the effect of the failure to properly examine the complainant’s internal appeal was to delay its final settlement. In the circumstances of the case, that failure has in itself caused the complainant moral injury which will be fairly redressed by ordering the Organization to pay him compensation of 5,000 United States dollars.”
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeals body; judicial review; moral damages; moral injury; right of appeal; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“[A]ccording 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 or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it rested on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4916, consideration 4, and 4495, consideration 15). Moreover, the case law also requires that the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 4917, consideration 12, 4503, consideration 7, and 3769, consideration 7).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3769, 4495, 4503, 4916, 4917
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; notice; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5133
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.
Consideration 7
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, a decision-maker imposing a disciplinary sanction, including the serious sanction of discharge, must be satisfied that the factual foundation for the finding of misconduct is proven beyond reasonable doubt (see Judgment 4936, consideration 6). Moreover, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4227, consideration 6, 4106, consideration 11, and 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the role of the Tribunal is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 4949, consideration 10, and 4362, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 4106, 4227, 4362, 4936, 4949
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct; role of the tribunal; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
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;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The violation of the complainant’s due process in the disciplinary process was a manifest error, which permits the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision, as well as the initial decision contained in the letter of 7 February 2020, without it being necessary to rule on any other plea the complainant proffers. Inasmuch as the complainant’s rights to due process were violated, he is entitled to moral damages. For this, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will award him 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; judicial review; manifest error; moral damages; patere legem; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[F]irm and constant precedents have it that the role of the Tribunal is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt, but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion and whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
It is also worth recalling that in Judgment 4579, consideration 4, the Tribunal emphasized that “[it] shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error […]” […].
With respect to the burden of proof applicable in disciplinary proceedings, it is furthermore recognized that “the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]."
Lastly, in respect of harassment matters such as the instant case, established precedent of the Tribunal states that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts or events complained of […].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4579
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Considerations 32-33
Extract:
“In these circumstances, it is therefore appropriate for the Tribunal, rather than directly determining the lawfulness of the dismissal decision […], to remit the case to ITU […].
It should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasized, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority […]. This is especially so in the situations where the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review and will not supplant the organisation’s assessment with its own, whereas an appeal board can undertake a more comprehensive review and issue recommendations based on a different assessment or even on grounds of fairness or advisability.
The Tribunal adds this. [E]ven in the event that the internal appeal procedure does not result in a final settlement of the dispute, the proper consideration by the Appeal Board of the circumstances in which the decision was taken to dismiss the complainant will be of great assistance by allowing the Tribunal to have before it the findings of fact and the items of information, analysis and assessment resulting from the deliberations of that body. At the moment, these findings and determinations are unknown and missing.
[…] To be clear, this has, however, no bearing on the above findings of the Tribunal concerning the first, second, third and fourth pleas of the complainant that were held to be unfounded. These pleas related to alleged procedural flaws at the investigation or Disciplinary Chambers stages, not at the internal appeal stage. Regarding these pleas, the Tribunal can also rule upon them based on the record as it currently stands.”
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; right of appeal; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 31
Extract:
“[T]he role of the Tribunal […] is normally not to assess itself the evidence. […] [T]he Tribunal relevantly recalled that “[...] [i]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body, the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence […].”
Moreover, for the Tribunal to determine whether it is satisfied that evidence was available for the decision maker to reach the conclusions that it reached and that the latter properly applied the relevant standard in doing so, it needs to first have available the findings and determinations of the internal appeal body in this regard when the latter, like in the instant case, expressly indicates still having “some doubts on the evidence from both sides”. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4923, consideration 5, “[w]hile the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them was, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should have been taken […]”. It is indeed particularly not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4923
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5118
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close her harassment complaint without carrying out an investigation following a preliminary review.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that firm and constant precedent has it that its role is not to assess the evidence itself. Indeed, with respect to harassment matters, such as the instant case, established precedent of the Tribunal states that the question as to whether harassment occurred must precisely be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the denounced acts or events (see, for example, Judgments 5026, consideration 6, 4961, consideration 6, 4900, consideration 18, 4471, consideration 18, and 4241, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241, 4471, 4900, 4961, 5026
Keywords:
evidence; harassment; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“[A]n international organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment which is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff […]. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if taken without authority; if in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence […]. The Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited […].
[…] [A]n international organization has the duty to provide valid reasons for its non-renewal decision […]: ‘[…] a non-renewal decision must also be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones […]. Those reasons must also be communicated to the staff member concerned […], although they need not necessarily appear in the decision itself […].’
It is a firm principle established by the Tribunal’s case law that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member […].”
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5109
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation for moral injury due to the harassment he suffered by his supervisor.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The events which led to the complainant lodging a formal complaint of harassment with OIOS in late April 2021 (and in respect of which he had taken notes) began in October 2020. That is five years ago. It would be open to the Tribunal to remit the matter to the IAEA to enable the Director General to consider whether he should exercise his discretionary power to award moral damages in favour of the complainant. However, that would be likely to delay the resolution of the matter for several, if not many, months. Accordingly, the Tribunal will award moral damages itself, as it is empowered to do (see, for example, Judgment 4808, considerations 13 to 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4808
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; harassment; moral damages; moral injury; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5101
141st Session, 2026
International Center for the Registration of Serials
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
« [U]n fonctionnaire titulaire d’un [contrat de durée déterminée] ne peut pas se prévaloir d’un droit à son renouvellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4587, au considérant 19, et 3448, au considérant 7). La décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’engagement d’un fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint de la part du Tribunal. Elle ne peut être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, si elle viole une règle de forme ou de procédure, si elle repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, si son auteur a omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou a tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou si elle est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4877, au considérant 2, 4654, au considérant 16, 4172, au considérant 5, 2148, au considérant 23, ou 1052, au considérant 4). Par ailleurs, le rôle du Tribunal dans l’examen des décisions de non-renouvellement de contrats pour des raisons budgétaires est, par nature, limité (voir les jugements 4953, au considérant 4, 4834, au considérant 2, et 3367, au considérant 11). Il n’en reste pas moins que toute décision de non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement de durée déterminée doit reposer sur des raisons objectives et valables (voir, notamment, le jugement 4654, au considérant 16).»
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [I]l n’appartient pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qui est le sien en la matière, de se substituer à l’appréciation qui a été faite par la Directrice et le Conseil d’administration concernant les restrictions budgétaires nécessitant le non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante […] il n’incombe pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qu’il est appelé à exercer en la matière, de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle de la Directrice en recherchant s’il n’y avait pas d’autres alternatives financières possibles au non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante afin de faire face aux difficultés budgétaires que rencontrait le Centre. »
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5098
141st Session, 2026
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-recognition of her illness as occupational.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“Established precedent has it that where, like in the present case, a complaint involves a medical matter, the Tribunal “may not replace the findings of medical experts with its own assessment. However, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the medical reports on which administrative decisions are based show any material mistake or inconsistency, overlook some essential fact or plainly misread the evidence” (see, in particular, Judgments 4761, consideration 2, 4699, consideration 6, 4694, consideration 11, 4464, consideration 7, 3994, consideration 5, and 3361, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3361, 3994, 4464, 4694, 4699, 4761
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; medical opinion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“It appears that, in the minds of the drafters of the JAAB’s recommendation, the consideration that “the JAAB has no mandate to investigate the recommendations of the JADB” was based on the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body, and the findings of such a body are entitled to considerable deference by it, unless they have been improperly established or reveal a manifest error […]. However, this case law concerns the role of the Tribunal itself, not that of an appeal body […]. This case law is explained, inter alia, by the fact that it is not the Tribunal’s role to conduct investigations similar to those conducted by an appeal body and by the idea that it is not best placed to assess the reliability of the statements of persons who may be heard in the course of an investigation. More generally, it refers to the particular features and limits of the Tribunal’s judicial role. However, these specificities do not apply to appeal bodies and, as the Tribunal has held on several occasions, such a body is wrong, when, in defining its own role, it refers to restrictions that apply in certain cases to the judicial review of administrative decisions […]. While the Tribunal’s sole function is to review the lawfulness of these decisions and, ordinarily, it rules only on points of law, it is for the appeal bodies, which are vested with a power of review extending to a complete re-examination, to determine whether the decision submitted to them is, in their view, the correct decision or whether, on the facts, some other decision should be made […].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 where the rules governing the appeal body provide for such restrictions […]. 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 […].
Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case not only did the JAAB refuse to further investigate the case, it also refused to conduct a legal analysis of the proceedings before the JADB, in order to assess whether it complied with the applicable staff rules and regulations and whether the procedural flaws in the process alleged by the complainant had occurred.
It should be emphasized that this error of law, which resulted in the JAAB’s refusal to fully review the disciplinary decision, had the effect of denying the complainant his right to have the merits of his internal appeal duly considered by that body. As a result, the complainant was not granted a fair and effective internal remedy.”
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; harassment; internal appeals body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 19
Extract:
“As to the standard of proof required in disciplinary matters, the Tribunal recalls that its case law has consistently found that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt […]. The burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]. In respect of the standard of proof, the Tribunal stated that the relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt […]. Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
The fact that an organization, in finding that misconduct occurred, fails to use the exact wording “beyond reasonable doubt” does not necessarily imply that misconduct has not been proven to the requisite standard. It is for the Tribunal to assess whether an organization could consider misconduct to be proven to that standard even though the decision-making authority did not expressly use the term “beyond reasonable doubt” […].
[…] As to the complainant’s argument that the investigator failed to apply the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof, the Tribunal notes that the role of an investigative body is to conduct a fact-finding investigation, that is to gather evidence and to recollect the facts in light of the evidence available. It is not the investigator’s role to reach a conclusion of whether misconduct occurred beyond reasonable doubt. This evaluation is reserved to the decision-making authority […].”
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; presumption of innocence; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Judgment 5019
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal rappelle que, en vertu de sa jurisprudence constante, les décisions relatives à la restructuration des services d’une organisation internationale, telles que celles portant sur une suppression de poste, relèvent du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4844, au considérant 3, 4841, au considérant 4, et la jurisprudence citée).
Ainsi que l’a précisé le Tribunal dans le jugement 4819, au considérant 6, dans de tels cas, son rôle est de vérifier «si ces décisions sont prises dans le respect des règles de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles ne reposent pas sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, ou si elles ne sont pas entachées de détournement de pouvoir. Le Tribunal ne se prononcera donc pas sur le bien-fondé d’une restructuration ou des décisions y relatives, tout comme il ne substituera pas sa propre appréciation à celle de l’organisation [dans de telles situations] (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4608, au considérant 7, 4405, au considérant 2, 4180, au considérant 3, ou 4004, au considérant 2, et la jurisprudence citée)» (voir également, dans le même sens, les jugements 4937, au considérant 2, et 4935, au considérant 4).
En revanche, le Tribunal a maintes fois relevé que toute suppression de poste doit être justifiée par des raisons objectives et ne saurait avoir pour but dissimulé d’éloigner du service un fonctionnaire considéré comme indésirable, ce qui constituerait alors un détournement de pouvoir (voir, à ce sujet, les jugements 4599, au considérant 11, 4353, au considérant 6, 2830, au considérant 6 b), et 1231, au considérant 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 2830, 4004, 4180, 4353, 4405, 4599, 4608, 4819, 4841, 4844, 4935, 4937
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5014
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request to be reassigned to a different team, and consequently to a different reporting line, as well as her request for a new assessment of her position.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s transfer was clearly within the executive head’s managerial discretion. The transfer did not affect her legal status, grade, or tasks, which remained consistent with her qualifications and prior responsibilities. The Tribunal notes that oral explanations about the justification of her transfer were provided to the complainant, and she was also provided with an adequate opportunity to comment, as required by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 4830, consideration 15, regarding the need of consultation prior to a transfer decision, and Judgment 4084, consideration 13, regarding the interest of the Organization justifying the transfer decision). As affirmed in Judgment 3734, consideration 5, for a practice to be binding, it must be consistent, longstanding, and widely recognized. Such conditions are not satisfied in this case. The complainant’s personal conflicts with new reporting lines do not constitute a legal basis for the Tribunal to interfere, as the Tribunal may only do so on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires, shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3488, 3734, 4084, 4599, 4830
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; role of the tribunal; transfer;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
