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

Administrative decision (708,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 16

  • Judgment 4201


    128th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Staff Association to reject his application for legal support in connection with a complaint he had filed with the Tribunal.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; freedom of association; ratione materiae; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4104


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence; impugned decision; ratione materiae;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4048


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her allegations of institutional harassment.

    Considerations 5, 6, 7, 8

    Extract:

    [C]entrally underpinning the complaint is what is characterised as a decision of 14 January 2016. Necessarily, to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment. The complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute).
    The letter of 10 December 2015, addressed to a Danish Minister, adverted to the allegation of institutional harassment and, in substance, was encouraging the Minister to take the opportunity of distancing himself from what the complainant perceived as a failure within the EPO to investigate the claimed harassment. The Tribunal can readily infer the letter was trying to bring about political pressure coming from the Minister directed to Mr K. The letter of 10 December 2015 did not in terms call upon the Minister to take any steps beyond, possibly, declaring his opposition to the “egregious and irregular treatment” of the complainant. It certainly did not demand or even request the vindication of a right, provision of a benefit or the enforcement of a duty or obligation of the type comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
    Moreover the responsive letter of 14 January 2016 did not address or concern, in so far as it directly responded to the letter of 10 December 2015, a non-observance of the type arising under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. In addition, it was written by Mr K., to the extent he was responding to the letter of 14 January 2016, in his capacity as Director General of a State government organ. Whatever he said in that capacity could not be treated as conduct of the EPO. Nonetheless, it may be thought that part of the letter should be treated as a response by Mr K. in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Council. However even if it was, it said nothing conclusively or determinedly about the complainant’s rights. There was not, in this respect, an administrative decision determining or resolving the complainant’s legal rights.
    The character of the impugned decision in the letter of 24 January 2017, to the extent that it was the endpoint of a chain commencing with the letter of 10 December 2015, is determined by what preceded it. It was not, in this respect, a decision concerning a matter addressed by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment 4039


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Organization recalls, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to decide whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
    However [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment;



  • Judgment 4038


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to determine whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
    However, [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment;



  • Judgment 3992


    126th Session, 2018
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a Note sent to all staff concerning a staffing plan.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he staffing plan is not an administrative decision subject to challenge. The staffing plan is just that – a plan developed by the Director-General setting out a proposed structure for the Technical Secretariat that also identifies and proposes the organisational and staffing changes needed to bring about the new structure for the Technical Secretariat. [...] [I]t is also observed that the text of the staffing plan does not include any decision. Moreover, the [...] decision of the Conference of the States Parties tasking the Director-General with the development of a staffing plan for the Technical Secretariat required that the implementation of any of the staffing plan proposals must be submitted to the OPCW’s policy-making organs for consideration.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3861


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal points out that the term “decision” means an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 532, under 3, and 3141, under 21). Having examined the two aforementioned emails, one containing a suggestion to the complainant and the other informing her of guidelines applicable within the ICC, it is obvious that they do not constitute administrative decisions. Moreover, in Judgment 2644, under 8, the Tribunal explained that “[t]here are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action [...] as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]).However, where, [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, [...] it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 2629, 2644, 3141

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; decision;



  • Judgment 3849


    124th Session, 2017
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal emphasises that it is desirable that an organisation make it absolutely clear in a communication that it constitutes notice that the contract will not be renewed and language to this effect should be used. Also, it is desirable for the organisation to say in such a communication that it manifests a final decision against which the official can appeal in a manner prescribed in the organisation’s rules and regulations.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notification;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It might be thought that the clear intimation from the Director of HRM that the contract would not be renewed should be viewed as conditional and thus should not be considered notification of a decision not to renew the contract. That is to say, it should not be taken to be notification of a final decision because there remained to be determined, before such a decision could be made, whether another position might be found for the complainant. However, the fact that a communication such as this might advert to further steps being taken to reassign or re-deploy an official, does not, of itself, result in the communication not being notification of a decision not to renew (see Judgment 634, consideration 2). Equally, however, in the event of non-renewal there must be a definite decision not to renew coupled with notification to the official (see Judgment 2104, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 634, 2104

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; notification;



  • Judgment 3840


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal is satisfied that the memorandum of 2 October 2013, objectively construed, did not, in all the circumstances of the case, constitute an administrative decision in respect of which review could be sought under the Staff Rules (see Judgment 2739, consideration 13). There is an obvious qualification in the first paragraph set out earlier that what the complainant was being told in a letter about his entitlements was conditional. That is to say it was subject to the outcome of attempts to find another position for the complainant. These matters had been the subject of discussions between the complainant and UNIDO in September 2013. It is true that paragraph 7 speaks, explicitly, of when the complainant’s last day of work would be. However that paragraph should not be taken out of context and, in particular, the context created by the first paragraph. Moreover, and significantly, no decision had, at this time, been made not to renew the complainant’s contract and such a decision was not made by the Director General until 29 October 2013, which was a matter known to the complainant when he lodged his internal appeal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2739

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;



  • Judgment 3839


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint concerns the rejection of the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It is well established that any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect constitutes a challengeable decision (see Judgment 3141, under 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3141

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;



  • Judgment 3833


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [E]stablished precedent has it that pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1798, under 6, and 3614, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798, 3614

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; pay slip;



  • Judgment 3761


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge a circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [I]n the context of determining the receivability of the complaints, it is an administrative decision of general application. In general, this type of decision 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. In the present case, the impugned decision directly and adversely affects the complainants’ rights as it precludes the complainants’ important right to participate in the decision-making process […]. As the complaints satisfy the requirements of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are receivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; general decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3141


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    However, such anomalies cannot prevent a decision from being challenged, because international organisations would otherwise be able to avoid any appeal against a decision by not adopting it in writing, or by not notifying it in the prescribed manner, which would have harmful effects. Furthermore, the case law of the Tribunal has it that an administrative decision may take any form and that, even if it is not put in writing, its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken by an officer of the organisation (see, in particular, Judgments 2573, under 8, or 2629, under 6). It is well established that any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect constitutes a challengeable decision (see, for example, Judgments 532, under 3, and 1674, under 6(a), or the aforementioned Judgment 2573, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 1674, 2573, 2573

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 2951


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 978

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; pay slip; time bar; time limit;


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top