|
|
 |
|
|
Step in the procedure (743,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Step in the procedure
Total judgments found: 42
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4814
137th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the subject of an investigation into allegations of harassment and abuse of authority, alleges that she received no reply, within the sixty-day time limit, to the claim submitted to the Director-General regarding “multiple conflicts of interest” of the Internal Oversight Service.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that procedural steps taken in the course of a process leading to a final decision cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal, though they may be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against that final decision (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14). In the present case, the refusal to act on the request for the IOS’s divestiture is part of the process leading to a decision resulting from the investigation report (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3958, consideration 15). Accordingly, any alleged irregularities in the investigation could only be raised in the context of a complaint directed against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, provided that she first exhausted the internal remedies available to her, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3958, 3961, 4404, 4704
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; step in the procedure; summary procedure;
Judgment 4807
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the report of the Medical Committee which extended her sick leave until 31 May 2016 and concluded that she was not suffering from invalidity.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the Medical Committee’s opinion is not an administrative decision of the type that can be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process of reaching the final decision of the Administration. In Judgment 4118, consideration 2, the Tribunal clarified the principle regarding a complaint directed against the Medical Committee’s report:
“With respect to the claims directed against the ‘decision’ of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007, the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such, cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office of 12 July 2007. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007.”
[…] [I]n the instant case, the only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision endorsing the Medical Committee’s opinion, contained in the 23 June 2014 letter from the Head of Department, Human Resources […] Expert Services, and not the Medical Committee’s opinion of 2 June 2014 or its letter of 11 June 2014, which the complainant erroneously considers to be the decision to be impugned.
Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118
Keywords:
administrative decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4791
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. 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, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4789
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. 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, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4763
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illnesses be recognized as service-incurred.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ny pleas concerning the question of whether [the complainant’s] medical condition was service-incurred relating to the 12 June decision are premature, since, in the end, the Director-General did not decide on this matter but decided to refer it to a medical board.
The 12 June 2020 decision, even though taken after an internal appeal process, refers the case to a medical board and is only a step in the process, not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see, generally, Judgment 4636, considerations 4 and 5). Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4636
Keywords:
medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4728
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Medical Committee’s decision to further extend his sick leave until 31 March 2015 and its failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The short answer to both complaints is that neither concerns an administrative decision of the type which can be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal. The decisions of the Medical Committee to extend the complainant’s sick leave were to facilitate the further investigation and consideration of the complainant’s medical condition, at least in the eyes of the majority, as part of the process of determining whether he was disabled and entitled to an invalidity benefit. They were both “steps in the process” directed towards the making of the final decision about the complainant’s entitlement (see, for example, Judgment 3893, consideration 8). Therefore, the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress, as is required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted; medical examination; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical examination; service-incurred; sick leave; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4726
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4725
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4721
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4704
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the determination made on his Clearance Certificate, upon his separation from service, that there was no medical reason to believe that he was incapacitated due to illness constituting an impairment to health likely to be permanent or of a long duration, as well as the decision to separate him from IAEA while on sick leave.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that “[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 Judgments 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14).
[…]
The Tribunal finds that neither Dr L.’s certification nor the IAEA’s statement in the impugned decision for the purpose of explaining Dr L.’s certification constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The complainant’s claims concerning his incapacitation are therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3961, 4404
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4701
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to defer the review of his contract’s extension.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the deferral decision is not a final administrative decision, as the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, for example, in Judgment 4404, consideration 3: “[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 [challenged] 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).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4404
Keywords:
step in the procedure;
Judgment 4645
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his complaint filed directly with the Tribunal, the complainant seeks to impugn a decision dated 6 July 2021 of which he was notified on 15 July 2021.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; step in the procedure; summary procedure;
Judgment 4641
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the interim results of his job grade evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant has failed to challenge a final decision as required by paragraph 1 of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, which states that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It is clear that the “decision” contained in the 2 May 2013 letter that the complainant purported to challenge was a mere step towards what eventually became a final challengeable decision of 9 October 2013, which informed him of the outcome of his job evaluation and which he has contested in another internal appeal.
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
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 4636
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension of his sick leave following the expiry of his maximum period of sick leave and the failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity which was attributable to the performance of official duties.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]he EPO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It submits that the complaint is premature and therefore irreceivable, because the medical procedure for determining whether a member of staff meets the definition of invalidity involves a series of steps and findings which lead to a final decision; such steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision; they may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. […]
What the complainant identifies as the impugned decision in this case was merely a “step in a process”, which may simply have the appearance of a decision (see, for example, Judgment 3860, consideration 6). It cannot be considered as a final decision for the purposes of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, because it was taken precisely in order for the Medical Committee to obtain additional information before making a determination as to whether the complainant was suffering from invalidity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860
Keywords:
invalidity; medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4635
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal in which he requested that an expert in occupational diseases be consulted.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the decision contested by the complainant was not an act adversely affecting him and therefore could not be challenged. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable.
[T]he refusal to grant the complainant’s request for an expert to be consulted had neither the aim nor the effect of ending the procedure he had initiated with a view to obtaining recognition that his invalidity was caused by an occupational disease. The refusal only meant that the request in question would be submitted to the Medical Committee for consideration, instead of being regarded as having to be granted automatically, as the complainant contended. Apart from the fact that it in no way prejudiced the eventual outcome of the request, this decision was merely a step in the process of reaching a final decision on the question of whether the invalidity was to be recognised as service incurred.
However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, when a decision is thus taken in the procedure leading to a final administrative decision, it must be regarded merely as a preparatory step and is not therefore challengeable in itself, although it may be challenged in the context of an appeal directed against that final decision (see, for example, Judgments 3433, consideration 9, and 2366, consideration 16, or, specifically in respect of decisions taken, as in this case, in proceedings of a medical nature, Judgments 3893, consideration 8, or 3712, consideration 3).
Lastly, while it must be noted that from the start of the dispute the EPO has never argued that the complainant’s claims are irreceivable, that does not prevent such a finding in the present judgment. It is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, in particular, Judgments 3648, consideration 5, 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, or 2097, consideration 24) and, while plainly it will not do so unless the submissions make such irreceivability clear, that is the situation here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2366, 2567, 3139, 3433, 3648, 3712, 3893
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; medical board; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4632
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejections of his requests for decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request did not proceed on the premise that there had been a final decision on the disciplinary case brought against him. Rather it was to terminate prematurely (the complainant would say appropriately) the disciplinary proceedings. This was only a step in the process and the complainant has no cause of action to challenge its rejection even if only implicitly. Accordingly, his two complaints are irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; direct appeal to tribunal; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4570
134th Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her request to suspend the consideration by the Joint Administrative Review Board of three internal appeals she had lodged, pending the Tribunal’s determination on corresponding complaints filed directly with it.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In the request addressed to the Director General the complainant raised a number of issues related to the composition of the JARB. In substance, the complainant argues that the Administration as a whole has a conflict of interest in all internal appeals lodged by her. However, this type of argument can be invoked before the Tribunal only when challenging a final administrative decision. Indeed, a decision concerning the composition of an internal body is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal, but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision. As such, it may be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the decision to be taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure (see, for example, Judgments 4131, consideration 4, and 4297, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131, 4297
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t [is not] appropriate [...] to grant [the complainant's] request for the IAC’s opinion to be set aside as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). This request is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
