Abuse of power (927,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Abuse of power
Total judgments found: 177
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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 18
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal reiterates its firm case law holding that the party asserting abuse of authority, bias, and improper motive must prove it (see Judgments 5001, consideration 6, 4978, consideration 12, 4971, consideration 9, 4524, consideration 15, 4467, consideration 17, 4146, consideration 10, 3939, consideration 10, 2264, consideration 7(a), and 2163, consideration 11). Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 2264, 3939, 4146, 4467, 4524, 4688, 4971, 4978, 5001
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
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 5
Extract:
“Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgments 4369, consideration 5, and 3905, consideration 15). However, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of post in a challenge to the subsequent termination of a staff member’s employment, even if no legal challenge was made, within time or at all, to the abolition of the post itself (see Judgments 3933, consideration 8, and 3172, consideration 16), for the limited purpose of, for example, ascertaining whether there has been an abuse of authority which entails consideration of whether the decision was taken for an improper purpose. Moreover, it is open to a complainant to impugn a redeployment process, if a failure to redeploy him has led to the termination of his employment (see, for example, Judgment 3933, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172, 3905, 3933, 4369
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; termination of employment;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law holds that the party asserting abuse of authority, bias, and improper motive must prove it (see Judgments 4524, consideration 15, 4467, consideration 17, 4146, consideration 10, 3939, consideration 10, 2264, consideration 7(a), and 2163, consideration 11). Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10).
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; evidence; prejudice;
Judgment 5099
141st Session, 2026
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract for abandonment of post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the Global Fund was not required to take additional precautionary measures to facilitate the complainant’s return to work and no abuse of authority has been established, as the complainant, being the party asserting this allegation, must prove it (see, for example, Judgments 4988, consideration 5, 4524, consideration 15, 4467, consideration 17, 4146, consideration 10, 3939, consideration 10, 2264, consideration 7(a), and 2163, consideration 11), which she has not done. The Tribunal’s case law has held that it is not always feasible to accommodate the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work is frequently and justifiably accorded higher priority than an individual’s personal interests (see Judgments 4345, consideration 5, 4316, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 11, 3192, consideration 22, and 2587, consideration 10). Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Global Fund has acted in good faith and fulfilled its duty of care by repeatedly inviting the complainant to regularise her employment situation and giving support to her in clarifying her legal situation after introducing Section 19(E) into the Employee Handbook.
Keywords:
abuse of power; evidence; organisation's interest;
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 22
Extract:
“A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant […].”
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 5050
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste les décisions prises par l’Organisation concernant la demande de reclassement de son poste.
Consideration 11
Extract:
En vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la mauvaise foi ne se présume pas et ne peut, en conséquence, être retenue que si la preuve en est rapportée au dossier (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4897, au considérant 10, 4675, au considérant 6, 4333, au considérant 15, ou 4161, au considérant 9). Ce même principe jurisprudentiel s’applique en cas d’invocation d’un parti pris défavorable à l’égard d’un fonctionnaire (voir notamment les jugements 4502, au considérant 10, 3914, au considérant 7, et 3380, au considérant 9) ou d’allégation de détournement de pouvoir (voir notamment les jugements 4696, au considérant 17, 4654, au considérant 22, ou 4283, au considérant 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914, 4161, 4283, 4333, 4502, 4654, 4675, 4696, 4897
Keywords:
abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 5034
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration des performances, de même que le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, le détournement de pouvoir ne se présume pas et qu’il appartient au fonctionnaire qui s’en prévaut d’en établir les éléments constitutifs (voir les jugements 4696, au considérant 17, 4552, au considérant 9, et 4437, au considérant 23). Or, en l’espèce, l’affirmation de la requérante ne repose sur aucun élément de preuve.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4437, 4552, 4696
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
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 18
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent case law establishes that internal appeals bodies are not obliged to address every individual argument raised, provided their conclusions adequately reflect the essential points considered (see, for example, Judgment 4763, consideration 6). Moreover, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of bias can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 11, 3914, consideration 7, 3543, consideration 20, and 1775, consideration 7), which the complainant has not provided.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3543, 3914, 4099, 4763
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof; internal appeals body; misuse of authority;
Judgment 5002
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following her refusal to accept two reassignment proposals.
Consideration 4
Extract:
WHO states that this complaint is receivable only to the extent that it concerns the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment and the related decisions to place her on SLWFP and to pay her three months’ salary in lieu of notice. It submits that any arguments relating to matters that are the subject of other proceedings should be disregarded as being outside the scope of this complaint. Whilst the Tribunal agrees with WHO that claims concerning these matters are outside the scope of the present complaint, it may consider them as pleas to support the complainant’s allegations that the decision to terminate her appointment was tainted by bias, retaliation and abuse of authority.
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; misuse of authority; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
Judgment 5001
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her in the context of the 2019 Mobility Exercise.
Consideration 5
Extract:
WHO states that it does not object to the receivability of this complaint insofar as it pertains to the complainant’s claims relating to UNAIDS’ decision to reassign her to the position of Fast-Track Adviser in Malawi […] it asks the Tribunal to disregard, as outside the scope of this complaint, other claims or references the complainant makes relating to her request for acting pay, her challenge to two decisions not to select her for P-5 level posts […] and a decision concerning home leave. […] Whilst the Tribunal agrees with WHO that claims concerning these matters are outside the scope of the present complaint, it notes the complainant’s statement which suggests that such pleas may be relevant to support her allegations that the decision to reassign her to Malawi was tainted by bias, retaliation and abuse of authority. The Tribunal may only consider these pleas as such.
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; misuse of authority; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] then recalled the case law in consideration 6 of Judgment 3748 and consideration 9 of Judgment 3380 to the effect that the complainant bears the burden to prove allegations of bias and to establish that the actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory and the evidence produced must be of sufficient weight to persuade the Tribunal, and, further, that reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations. By reference to consideration 14 of Judgment 4863, the Tribunal confirms that these are the applicable principles, including to prove allegations of abuse of authority, and notes, further, the statement in that consideration that the existence of a hidden disciplinary measure cannot be inferred from mere conjecture and could not be accepted unless it were proven.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3748, 4863
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; retaliation;
Judgment 4988
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was a patent examiner in the area of competence G01R in Berlin, contests the general decision to close that area of competence as well as the individual decision to reassign him pursuant to that closure.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s firm case law holds that the party asserting abuse of authority, bias, and improper motive must prove it (see, for example, Judgments 4524, consideration 15, 4467, consideration 17, 4146, consideration 10, 3939, consideration 10, 2264, consideration 7(a), and 2163, consideration 11). Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organisation, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 2264, 3939, 4146, 4467, 4524, 4688
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that bias, bad faith, and abuse of authority must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof. Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the Organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, 4608, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein; with regard to misuse of authority, see also Judgment 4427, consideration 12; with regard to bad faith, see also Judgment 3738, consideration 9). In the present case, the allegations concerning the IOD and the former Director General are merely speculative and, thus, unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 4427, 4608, 4745
Keywords:
abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
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.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Additionally, the complainant’s submission, which seems to suggest that, in abuse of authority, the subject decisions were influenced by the Chair-in-Office misapprehends the relationship between IOM and the Member States that funded the GFMD. Furthermore, the complainant’s submission that the subject decisions were arbitrarily made in unnecessary haste is not supported by the facts or the record. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, abuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see, for example, Judgments 4283, consideration 9, 4081, consideration 19, 3543, consideration 20, and 2116, consideration 4(a)). Moreover, bias, prejudice, and bad faith cannot be presumed, they must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgments 4841, consideration 4, and 4745, consideration 12). The complainant does not provide evidence (as against surmise and speculation) to discharge the burden she bears to prove that the decisions were taken out of malice; in bad faith or were motivated by bias against her on the part of the UAE’s Chair-in-Office. For the foregoing reasons, the third ground is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3543, 4081, 4283, 4688, 4745, 4841
Keywords:
abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4901
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has often emphasized that a staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purposes for which the authority was exercised (see, for example, Judgments 4618, consideration 10, 4382, consideration 13, and 4146, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4146, 4382, 4618
Keywords:
abuse of power; burden of proof;
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Bias and abuse of authority must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4688
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof;
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It follows from the[se] considerations that the impugned decision must be set aside in so far as it refused to redefine the external collaboration contract for the period from 6 November to 15 December 2006, bearing in mind that, although the Organization attempts to oppose that setting aside by referring to the inviolability of the terms of a contract, that objection cannot stand in the case of misuse of the rules governing the contractual relationship between an organisation and its staff members (see, for example, Judgments 3225, consideration 7, 3090, consideration 7, 2838, consideration 8, and 2708, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 3090, 3225
Keywords:
abuse of power; conversion of contract;
Judgment 4781
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; harassment;
Judgment 4696
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover supposed overpayments made to him by way of expatriation allowance.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, misuse of authority may not be presumed. The burden of proof is on the official who pleads it, here being the complainant (see Judgments 4552, consideration 9, and 4437, consideration 23). The Tribunal considers that no misuse of authority has been established, especially given that, in seeking to recover the contested sums, the Organisation was simply applying the provisions of the Staff Regulations which it was entitled, or indeed required, to implement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4437, 4552
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
Judgment 4691
136th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; harassment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[B]y framing the alleged harassing conduct involving an abuse of authority in the narrow way it did […] together with its consideration of specific issues or events in isolation, it is more likely than not that the OIG failed to consider whether the conduct as a whole involved an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2930, consideration 3) or, putting it slightly differently, whether the cumulative effect of the conduct could be reviewed as harassment and, specifically, an abuse of authority (see Judgment 4347, consideration 30).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2930, 4347
Keywords:
abuse of power; harassment; investigation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
