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
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
Judgment 612
53rd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's submission of an internal appeal was time-barred; for not having correctly followed the internal procedure, her complaint is irreceivable. The discovery of an allegedly unlawful decision does not affect the time limit for internal appeal. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant in breach of good faith.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 603
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant's "later discovery that the administration's decision might have been unlawful does not affect the time limit, which is an objective matter of fact and starts on the date on which the impugned decision was notified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of setting a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant and is therefore in breach of good faith."
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 602
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 603, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 603
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 575
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"No doubt the complainant did not notice until March 1982 the inequality of treatment which she pleads. But according to [...] the Service Regulations the [three-month] time limit for filing the appeal in this case began at the date on which the impugned decision was notified to her [July 1981], not at the later date on which she became aware of the alleged inequality."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 565
51st Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(A)
Extract:
According to the Staff Regulations, decisions taken by the Director-General himself are not subject to the complaint procedure. "The performance report referred to in [the complainant's claim] was approved by the Director-General and so he accepted responsibility for it. The complainant was therefore entitled to take the view that he need not address a complaint to the Director-General before submitting [his claim] to the Tribunal. [...] Article VII(1) of the Statute constitutes no bar to a complainant who [...] rightly concluded that he was not required to follow one of the internal appeal procedures."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 544
50th Session, 1983
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was notified to him more than ninety days before the date on which he filed the complaint. "However [...] he made a request [...] for the institution of disciplinary proceedings to dispel the suspicion which he believed he was under; and [...] he [subsequently] appealed to the Director-General against the failure to convince the Disciplinary Board. His ultimate purpose [...] was to have the decision of non-renewal set aside; in other words to challenge it." It would be unduly formalistic to make the time limit run from the date of the decision not to renew his appointment was notified.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; disciplinary procedure; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit;
Judgment 532
49th Session, 1982
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
A final decision is one "not open to further challenge within the organisation."
Keywords:
decision; definition;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The term 'decision' in Article VII[3] of the Statute of the Tribunal denotes "any action by an officer of the organisation which has a legal effect. Accordingly, where such an officer merely acknowledges receipt of an appeal addressed to him, that will not amount to a decision, even if he says he intends to look into the matter as promptly as possible. Such an acknowledgement has no legal effect and is not a decision such as will rebut the presumption of dismissal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
decision; definition; formal requirements;
Judgment 522
49th Session, 1982
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"It is open to a Director-General to settle a dispute at any time so long as he uses language which shows clearly that he is giving his final decision. A formula that is commonly used by a number of executive heads is to say plainly that what has been written is a final decision, that [...] the staff member can appeal against it within the specified period."
Keywords:
decision; formal requirements;
Consideration 19
Extract:
For the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board to be waived, Staff Rules require the Director-General's consent, and no time limit is prescribed for his decision. "The just solution may be that, provided that the complainant is not dilatory in applying for the consent of the Director-General, time does not begin to run until after the Director-General has communicated his decision."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; request by a party; start of time limit;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant's letter of 29 November shows that he did not regard the letter of 22 November as a decision. "The good faith that is part of the link between the organization and its members requires that neither side should take advantage of an obvious misconstruction by the other of its intentions. The silence of the organization when it must clearly have seen that the complainant was [on its view] misreading the letter of 22 November prevents it from setting up that letter as a decision."
Keywords:
date; decision; good faith; intention of parties;
Judgment 517
49th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision impugned was notified to the complainant on 25 May, and the ninety days accordingly expired on 23 August. Since 23 August was a sunday, the complaint, which was not filed until 24 August, is receivable.
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; date of notification; decision; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 513
49th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of the decisions of the Internal Board of Appeal and the Director-General to reject his appeal in accordance with the Board's recommendation. Only the latter decision, the final one, which is in accordance with Article VII of the Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
application for quashing; competence of tribunal; decision; iloat statute; internal appeals body; recommendation; report;
Judgment 509
48th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[The complainant's] claims for compensation are irreceivable because there is no previous decision."
Keywords:
condition; decision; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 507
48th Session, 1982
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainants received letters dated 6 March signed by an officer of the personnel service terminating their employment upon the instructions of the Director-General. "It does not [...] follow from this [...] that the letter [...] was a final decision. It would not so follow even if that letter had been signed by the Director-General himself. Not every decision of the Director-General is a final decision. The complainants assumed rightly that the Director-General would not reach a final decision until after he had considered carefully what they had to say. His letter of 21 May was not, as the organisation contends, 'purely confirmatory' of the letter of 6 March and it contains the final decision. The objection to receivability is overruled."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 495
48th Session, 1982
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A staff member who cannot understand why he should be, as it appears to him, unfavourably treated, is naturally inclined to suspect prejudice. One of the unfortunate results of the existing disputes is to create the belief that any decision adverse to an active member of the staff association is to be explained by his staff activities."
Keywords:
bias; decision; grounds; presumption; staff union activity;
Judgment 493
48th Session, 1982
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The organisation's argument is that the time limit for filing the complaint started on [the date] the complainant's contract was extended [...]. The argument would succeed only if the later decisions [...] had merely confirmed the [extension] decision. But they did not. The extension of the contract [on the mentioned date] for three months did not necessarily mean that there would be no further extension."
Keywords:
complaint; contract; date; date of notification; decision; extension of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 478
47th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant's first claim was rejected. In his reply to the second, which was based on the same cause of action as the first, "the Director, who had carried out no further inquiry, merely confirmed his earlier position. The [second] decision [...] was therefore purely confirmatory in character and did not give rise to any new time limit." As the time limit was not extended, the appeal is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 470
47th Session, 1982
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"That a staff member should have been the subject of a flawed decision does not alone entitle him to compensation for moral prejudice. For that he must have suffered more severe prejudice than that normally caused by an improper decision." In this case the impugned decision "is unlikely to have had abnormal effects. In any event, insofar as it was based on lack of funds it was in no way humiliating. Moreover, the moral prejudice [...] has been mitigated by his appointment with the government".
Keywords:
condition; decision; flaw; moral injury;
Judgment 456
46th Session, 1981
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Under the general rules on the burden of proof it is for the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If he sends a letter by registered post or an official notice of acknowledgement for completion by the addressee he can easily furnish the proof. If he sends it by ordinary mail he may be unable to do so, and then, for want of evidence as to the actual date of receipt, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the addressee."
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification; decision; evidence; lack of evidence;
Judgment 447
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Where the impugned decision is not unlawful such compensation is due only in exceptional circumstances, viz. where the wrong is especially grave. On the other hand, where the decision is unlawful, the wrong need not be especially grave for an award of compensation for moral prejudice: it is enough for the Tribunal to find a serious wrong."
Keywords:
condition; decision; flaw; moral injury;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Under the general rules on the burden of proof, it is for the author to establish the date on which a communication was received. [...] For want of evidence as to the actual day of receipt, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the addressee."
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification; decision; lack of evidence;
Judgment 432
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Tribunal holds the medical report to be the final decision. In it the reasons for the decision are stated in clear and unambiguous terms. The word "decision" occurs in the text. The complaint is time-barred and irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 429
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The right to impugn a decision subsumes the right to challenge the rule on which the decision is founded. But the Tribunal may not exercise as wide a power of review over the rule as over the decision taken under it."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; enforcement; judicial review; provision; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
