Abuse of power (927,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Abuse of power
Total judgments found: 168
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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;
Judgment 4688
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a developmental assignment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[R]eference should be made to the Tribunal’s case law according to which the party asserting abuse of authority 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). Similarly, the party asserting the existence of a conspiracy must prove it. In Judgment 2472, consideration 9, the Tribunal said:
“With respect to the allegations of bias and conspiracy, the burden of proving this is on the complainant [...] ‘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.’”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 2264, 2472, 3939, 4146, 4467, 4524
Keywords:
abuse of power;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint dismissed; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4531
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 31 August 2018, being the date on which she reached her retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of her appointment beyond retirement age.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
[T]hese pleas fail to recognise the wide discretionary power acknowledged and accepted by the Tribunal vested in an executive head to make decisions to retain officials beyond the normal retirement age and the concomitant limits on review by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2669, consideration 8, and 4016, consideration 10). [...]
Notwithstanding the preceding discussion about the width of the discretionary power of an executive head to extend an appointment and the limited scope of review by the Tribunal, such a decision can be challenged on the basis that the power has not been exercised bona fide or, described more generally, involved an abuse of authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2669, 4016
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; retirement age;
Judgment 4524
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant provides no persuasive evidence to prove that the decision to appoint the selected candidate was taken in bad faith or for an improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4261, consideration 10, and 4345, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261, 4345
Keywords:
abuse of power; selection procedure;
Judgment 4516
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As the complainant has not substantiated his allegations that the decision to close the case was taken for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 3172, consideration 16, and 3939, consideration 10) or that it was based on bias (see, for example, Judgment 4010, consideration 9); that it was tainted by personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3912, consideration 13) or bad faith (see, for example, Judgment 3902, consideration 11), there is no basis on which to grant exemplary damages which he claims (see, for example, Judgment 3092, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3092, 3172, 3902, 3912, 3939, 4010
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; exemplary damages; personal prejudice;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The claim of abuse of authority is unsubstantiated as the complainant provides no evidence to prove that the decision to appoint the successful candidate was taken in bad faith or for an improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4261, consideration 10, and 4345, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261, 4345
Keywords:
abuse of power;
Judgment 4437
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that there is abuse of authority when an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation’s best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve (see Judgments 1129, consideration 8, 2885, consideration 12, and 3902, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 2885, 3902
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority;
Judgment 4434
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the refusal to organise a strike ballot under the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainants are entitled to moral damages for the decision of the President not to hold a ballot for a strike they and others called for in accordance with the provisions of Circular No. 347, which constituted an abuse of power in that the President purported to exercise a power which he did not have. The President’s conduct involved a significant and unilateral derogation of the complainants’ right to strike even as arising under the materially constraining scheme in Circular No. 347 and CA/D 5/13. These moral damages are assessed in the sum of 6,000 euros for each complainant.
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; moral injury; right to strike; strike;
Judgment 4432
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to accept only part of the recommendations of the Appeals Committee on his appeal against the postponement of a strike ballot by the President of the European Patent Office.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant initially sought and still seeks moral damages. In his brief he seeks 10,000 euros moral damages “for depriving [him] of his fundamental human right to strike and taking away his fundamental right to freedom of association”. But he was not deprived of the right, at least in its entirety. There was only a delay in taking a procedural step which may have led to a strike in which the complainant would have been involved. At best for the complainant, the facts reveal the EPO failed to comply with paragraph 3 of Circular No. 347 notwithstanding that it was bound by the rules it had itself issued until it amended or repealed them (see, for example, Judgments 963, consideration 5, and 3883, consideration 20). Putting it this way is not to suggest that the non-observance was trivial. The Organisation had put in place highly contentious provisions concerning a matter of fundamental importance, namely the right to strike. It could be expected that all elements of those provisions would be followed to the letter unless there was some insuperable reason for not doing so. In this case, there was not. The President acted unilaterally and arbitrarily in breach of the scheme the Organisation had adopted and, in any event, his conduct involved an abuse of power in that he purported to exercise a power which he did not have. The complainant is entitled to moral damages which are assessed in the sum of 6,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 963, 3883
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; moral injury; patere legem; right to strike; strike;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
