Decision (24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision
Total judgments found: 424
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for interest for late payment on the sums that were repaid to her. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decision had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions, and the corresponding interest, conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and implied that interest for late payment could be considered only if URSSAF or the French authorities paid such interest. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainants’ claims for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letters of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainants for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
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 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds.
Keywords:
decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he warning letter provided for in Section A(6) of Circular No. 246 is not an act that could be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process that culminates in a staff report (see Judgments 3806, consideration 6, 3697, consideration 5, 3629, consideration 3, 3512, consideration 3, and 3433, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3629, 3697, 3806
Keywords:
decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he decision regarding the house ban, as well as the suspension decision, even if they are essentially interim measures to safeguard the investigation, have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered mere steps to the final decision of the proceeding. As such, the request for review of these decisions was receivable [...].
Keywords:
decision; measure of distraint; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[P]aragraph 8 of [Instruction] IN/217 does not mandate notification to be in writing. The notification of the termination decision may have taken any form which informed the complainant of the subject decision (see Judgment 3505, consideration 8, and the judgments cited therein). Having been verbally notified of the termination decision on 1 March 2015, the complainant’s deadline for sending a request for review was 30 April 2015.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505
Keywords:
decision; formal requirements; judicial review;
Judgment 3940
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a distinction must be made between a decision to abolish a post and a decision to terminate an appointment (see, for example, Judgment 3755, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; decision; termination of employment;
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; definition; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 3806
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his appeal against a warning letter concerning his performance and the subsequent confirmation of that warning.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a warning letter under Circular No. 246 is merely a step in the procedure that leads to the drafting of a staff report and that, as such, it cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal nor be taken into account to the detriment of the employee (see, for example, Judgments 3697, 3629, 3512 and 3433). The complainant considers that this case law should not apply to his complaint because the warnings at issue involved harassment. However, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3233, under 6, an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it. In the present case, the Tribunal is bound to observe that the complainant’s allegations of harassment are entirely unsubstantiated and amount to mere assertions. Accordingly, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from the case law mentioned above concerning warnings issued under Circular No. 246.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233, 3433, 3512, 3629, 3697
Keywords:
decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3749
123rd Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of additional income tax paid by her husband.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative decision may take any form if its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken by an officer of the organisation, as is the case here (see, in particular Judgments 2573, under 8, 2629, under 6, and 3141, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2573, 2629, 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3711
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the EPO not to treat his internal appeal as such.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; complaint dismissed; decision; summary procedure;
Judgment 3686
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.
Consideration 35
Extract:
In Judgment 2364, consideration 2, the Tribunal considered grounds of complaint based on facts arising subsequent to the impugned decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
decision; subsequent fact;
Judgment 3666
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to promote him in 2012.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The above considerations are enough to dismiss the complaint but, for the sake of clarity, the Tribunal finds it useful to add that the complainant’s claim that the Joint Committee for Disputes (JCD) was incorrect in stating that his performance appraisal report for 2011 could not justify his promotion, is unfounded. Article 45 of the Staff Regulations clearly provides that merit shall be of primary importance in considering eligibility for promotion, and it goes on to specify that the official’s appraisal reports shall be taken into consideration when considering comparative merit. However, the Tribunal notes that the complainant’s performance appraisal report for 2011 does not show that his merit would justify a promotion. Furthermore, the complainant’s criticism towards his 2011 appraisal report cannot be taken into consideration as he did not impugn the appraisal report in accordance with the relevant rules and within the applicable time limits. Therefore the complainant’s 2011 appraisal report is immune from challenge.
Keywords:
decision; performance report; time bar;
Judgment 3302
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints were dismissed for non-exhaustion of internal remedies under Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2780, 2811, 2939
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; decision; delay; duty of care; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3301
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant through five irreceivable complaints requested information concerning facts that occurred before his retirement for disability.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Rules
Organization rules reference: Articles 107, par. 2, and 109, par. 3, of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; decision; express decision; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"As to the adequacy of the notification to the complainant of the decision to abolish his post in Judgment 3041, under 8, the Tribunal held that an organisation must give proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. While it is true that the letter did not expressly state that the decision was a final decision, it clearly communicated that a final decision had been taken to abolish the complainant’s post with immediate effect. The fact that the complainant remained in the post during the reassignment process is a matter of the implementation of the decision and does not detract from the finality of the
decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
abolition of post; decision; definition; post held by the complainant; reassignment;
Judgment 3279
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol’s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944
Keywords:
case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
