ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Impugned decision (651, 33,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Impugned decision
Total judgments found: 59

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4780


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    In her brief, the complainant identifies the 12 February 2020 letter from the Chief, Human Resources Management Department (HRMD), as the impugned decision. […]
    The Tribunal notes that, in the meantime, the Appeal Board considered the matter and, on 30 September 2020, the Administration took a final decision on the complainant’s appeal […]. In view of this final decision taken in the course of the proceedings, which has thus replaced the decision initially impugned before the Tribunal, the present complaint must be deemed to be directed against the 30 September 2020 decision.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4769


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant raised the point that, after he had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, [...] the Joint Committee for Disputes eventually issued its opinion on his internal complaint. This led to a decision explicitly rejecting that internal complaint, taken on 10 December 2021 [...].
    [...] Since the parties had the opportunity to comment fully in their submissions on the decision expressly rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as if it were directed against that decision (for similar cases, see, in particular, Judgments 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065, 4660

    Keywords:

    express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4768


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant raised the point that, after he had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, [...] the Joint Committee for Disputes eventually issued its opinion on his internal complaint [...]. This led to the Director General taking the decision [...] explicitly rejecting that internal complaint [...].
    Since the parties had the opportunity to comment fully in their submissions on the decision expressly rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, the Tribunal considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the complaint as if it were directed against that decision (for similar cases, see, in particular, Judgments 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065, 4660

    Keywords:

    express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4697


    136th Session, 2023
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In view of the fact that, subsequent to the complainant filing his complaint and his rejoinder, the Joint Committee for Disputes delivered its opinion on 6 October 2021 on his internal complaint of 29 May 2020 and the Director General made an express decision on 12 October 2021 rejecting that internal complaint, the complainant also impugns that decision in his further submissions.
    Since the parties have had ample opportunity to comment in their submissions on that express decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint of 29 May 2020, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that decision.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;



  • 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 3

    Extract:

    After the complainant had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, a final decision was taken by the Director General on 7 December 2020 rejecting his internal complaint. In his rejoinder, the complainant therefore specifies that, ultimately, he is impugning that final decision, which in fact confirmed the earlier contested decision of 26 November 2019.
    Since the parties have had ample opportunity to comment in their submissions on that final decision, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that decision.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4695


    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 requiring him to reimburse the undue payments of salary he received during absences that were declared to be unjustified by the Administration.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    After the complainant had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, an express decision was taken by the Director General on 7 December 2020 rejecting his internal complaint of 17 February 2020. In his rejoinder, the complainant therefore also challenges that decision.
    Since the parties have had ample opportunity to comment in their submissions on the express decision to reject the internal complaint in question, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that decision.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4694


    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 confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes on the complainant’s internal complaint of 10 July 2018 was delivered on 29 March 2019, subsequent to the date on which he had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and an express decision rejecting the internal complaint was taken on 9 May 2019 by the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit, acting by delegation of power from the Director General and endorsing the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that the internal complaint was unfounded. In his rejoinder, the complainant therefore also challenges that decision.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4660


    136th Session, 2023
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In view of the adoption of the aforementioned decision of 12 August 2020 during the proceedings before the Tribunal, which the complainant challenged in his rejoinder and on which the parties were able to express their views in their submissions, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that final decision (see, in particular, for comparable situations, Judgments 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4637


    135th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant also seeks an order setting aside the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, impugned by the complainant, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, in respect of the EPO’s Appeals Committee, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the Appeals Committee null and void is irreceivable as the Appeals Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. This is equally true of an opinion of the Appraisals Committee. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3171, consideration 13).
    It follows that this claim is irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4392

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4598


    135th Session, 2023
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [A] mere declaration […] that [the Director-General] was satisfied of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt without explaining why, involves a failure to motivate a conclusion at odds with the conclusion of the internal appeals body. This failure, alone, would justify the setting aside of the impugned decision (see Judgments 4400, consideration 10, 4062, consideration 3, and 3969, considerations 10 and 16). What, at a minimum, the Director-General needed to have done was explain why the analysis of the GBA […] was flawed, or did not sustain the ultimate conclusion of the GBA, or both. He did neither.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; motivation of final decision; standard of proof;



  • Judgment 4477


    133rd Session, 2022
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims compensation in lieu of notice of termination of appointment for reasons of health and the reimbursement of the days of annual leave he alleges that he had accrued before that termination.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [W]ith regard to the complainant’s claim that the Appeal Board report of 2 February 2018, on which the impugned decision of 3 April 2018 is based, be set aside on account of a formal flaw [...] the Tribunal observes that an opinion issued by an appeal body is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a decision on the appeal which does not itself cause injury to the complainant. Claims against it are therefore irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4392

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4461


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Since the suspension decision as well as the decision to remove him from his duties had, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the complainant, and were not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must themselves be challenged (see, for example, Judgments 1927, consideration 5, 2365, consideration 4, 3035, consideration 10, and 4237, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035, 4237

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; step in the procedure; suspension;



  • Judgment 4439


    132nd Session, 2021
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;



  • Judgment 4430


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal case law to the effect that a general decision cannot be challenged by a staff member unless and until an individual decision is taken. But the Tribunal’s case law contains an exception or limitation. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3761 at consideration 14:
    “In general, [an administrative decision of general application] is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4404


    132nd Session, 2021
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of an amount wrongly deducted from her pay owing to double national taxation of her income, and compensation for the moral injury allegedly suffered as a result.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16, confirmed by Judgments 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3700, consideration 14, 3876, consideration 5, and 3961, consideration 4).
    In this case, the email [...], the sole purpose of which was to invite the complainant to submit documents deemed necessary by the organisation’s services so that the deductions could be reimbursed, was merely a step in preparation for the decision that would ultimately be taken as to the payment of the sums in question. That email cannot therefore be construed as constituting a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and could not, therefore, be impugned before the Tribunal (for a similar case involving a request for the production of supporting documents required for the examination of an application for financial benefits, see Judgment 3876, considerations 4 and 5).
    It follows that the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4303


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [T]he impugned decision was based on an affirmative finding that the decision to abolish the complainant’s post was tainted by illegality including prejudice towards the complainant. In a case such as the present, a challenge to a final administrative decision is a challenge to the decision itself and at least ordinarily not the reasons on which the decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 7), nor to any alleged procedural flaws leading to a decision which vindicates the complainant’s grievance.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997

    Keywords:

    cause of action; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4296


    130th Session, 2020
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests that allegedly offensive remarks be removed from an investigation report.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; harassment; impugned decision; investigation report;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute relevantly states that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of an official’s appointment and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations. In Judgment 4145, consideration 5, the Tribunal recalled that Article II has been interpreted to require that for a complaint to be receivable the staff member must have a cause of action and the impugned decision must be one that, by its nature, is subject to challenge. The Tribunal reiterated, in Judgment 4007, consideration 4, that “for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury” and had stated, additionally, in Judgment 3337, consideration 7, that the decision must have some present effect on the complainant’s position.
    Inasmuch as the Director-General accepted the Investigative Team’s recommendation to dismiss the harassment complaint against the complainant and closed the case, the decision which the complainant challenges had no present effect on his position. Accordingly, the complaint does not disclose a cause of action and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3337, 4007, 4145

    Keywords:

    cause of action; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4295


    130th Session, 2020
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to impose a disciplinary measure against him.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    [A]s the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 4145, consideration 5, Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute requires that “for a complaint to be receivable the staff member must have a cause of action and the impugned decision must be one that, by its nature, is subject to challenge” (see also Judgment 3426, consideration 16).
    In his pleadings, the complainant stresses that in his appeal he only challenged “that aspect of the decision that found he had made a secret recording”. It is evident and not disputed that the complainant takes the position that the statement in section II(h) of the 8 May 2017 letter forms part of the decision articulated in that letter under the heading “Decision”. This position is flawed as it disregards the distinction between a finding of fact and a decision. As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 3861, consideration 5, and the cases cited therein, “the term ‘decision’ means an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect”. A finding of fact, however, forms part of the reasons articulated in arriving at the decision. In Judgment 3997, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated that “the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is a challenge to a final decision with operative legal effect and not a challenge to the reasons underpinning that decision.” The Tribunal added, as consistently held in the case law, that “[o]bviously if there is a final decision with an operative legal effect then a challenge to that decision can also impugn the reasoning leading to it”.
    The 8 May 2017 letter was divided into three sections: Procedure, Considerations and Decision. It is noted that the statement in section II(h), at issue in this proceeding, was one of the ten considerations in the section under the heading “Considerations”. On this basis alone, it is evident that the statement was one of the considerations underpinning the decision and not a decision. Moreover, on the face of it, it is clear that the statement “there is evidence that the recording took place” is a finding of fact and not a decision as contemplated in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. As for the decision itself, it was beneficial to him and, in that respect, he has no cause of action. It follows that the complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 3861, 3997, 4145

    Keywords:

    cause of action; decision; impugned decision;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; impugned decision; misconduct;



  • Judgment 4287


    130th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision lifting his non-disciplinary suspension from duties.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The decision to lift the complainant’s suspension (as opposed to the decision to suspend him) did not involve non-observance of any Staff Regulation or the terms of his appointment. Indeed it was a decision which was beneficial to him and, in that respect, he has no cause of action to contest it.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4277


    130th Session, 2020
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [O]nly final decisions can be impugned before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3512, under 3, 3958, under 15, and 4131, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3512, 3958, 4131

    Keywords:

    impugned decision;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3736, under 3, “according to the case law, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged” (see Judgments 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein, 4008, under 3, and 4119, under 4). Accordingly, the lawfulness of the general decision may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4008, 4119

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complaint is [...] receivable insofar as it is directed against the pay slip for January 2018, which is an individual decision implementing the general decisions establishing a “pension point”, freezing pensions and setting the value of the point. In support of her claims related to that pay slip, the complainant may therefore plead that the general decisions on which it partly rests are unlawful (see Judgment 3931, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3931

    Keywords:

    general decision; impugned decision; individual decision;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top