Judgment No. 3426
1. The complaints are dismissed.
2. The applications to intervene are dismissed.
The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
cause of action; pension; complaint dismissed
As the two complaints rest on the same material facts and raise the same issues of fact and law, they may be dealt with
in one judgment, and are joined (see Judgment 1541, under 3).
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1541
[E]ven if there is agreement, the Tribunal must still determine whether it is competent to hear the complaint under Article II of the Statute. As the competence of the Tribunal is statutory, it cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties or on consent.
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
competence of tribunal; iloat statute
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1756, 3136
receivability of the complaint; cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione personae; ratione materiae
In the present case, the complainants have not shown that decision CA/D 25/07 has caused them or is liable to cause them any injury. The effect of the decision was budgetary only. The shift of the financial responsibility for the tax adjustment did not in any way adversely affect either of the complainants and will not have any adverse effect in the future.
lack of injury; cause of action