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

General decision (33,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: General decision
Total judgments found: 114

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >

  • 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:

    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;



  • Judgment 4276


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisal under the new merit recognition system established following the 2015 five-yearly review.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law has it that a general decision which requires individual implementation cannot be challenged directly; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged (see Judgments 3628, under 4, 3736, under 3, 4008, under 3, and 4119, under 4, and the case law cited therein). The lawfulness of the general decision may only be challenged as part of the challenge to the individual decision.

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 4257


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    Allied to these arguments is an argument of the EPO that the complainant is limited as to the subject matter he can challenge having regard to the fact that Article 110a of the Service Regulations introduced by CA/D 10/14 and Circular No. 366 are general decisions which are not amenable to challenge unless and until a decision is made detrimentally affecting the complainant.
    The last-mentioned argument of the EPO is founded on settled case law. The EPO cites Judgment 3291, consideration 8. A more recent illustration is Judgment 4075, consideration 4. However in the present case Article 110a of the Service Regulations introduced by CA/D 10/14 and Circular No. 366 have been applied in an individual decision affecting the complainant, namely the application of the new procedures to the review of his grievances about the terms of the 2014 staff report and the involvement in its preparation of individuals he alleges were not impartial. Accordingly, the complainant can challenge the lawfulness of those general decisions.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4075

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4236


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the results of the comprehensive local salary survey of 2013 for New Delhi, India.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; general decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    Both in their briefs and in the common rejoinder, the complainants refer to several earlier judgments of the Tribunal, namely Judgments 522, 663, 1618 and 2244 in support of the contention that the complaints are receivable. The Director-General relied on Judgment 3427 in his letter of 5 September 2017 and WHO relies in its pleas on Judgments 3736, 3921 and 3931 to argue the complaints are not receivable. Certainly the contemporary case law of the Tribunal supports the argument of WHO. It is sufficient to refer to Judgment 3931. The circumstances considered in that judgment align almost completely with the circumstances in this matter. The Tribunal said:
    “3. [...] The result of the impugned decision was that the salaries of staff who had been recruited before 1 November 2014 would be frozen and staff recruited after that date would receive salaries under a new salary scale. All the complainants were recruited before 1 November 2014. An aspect of the Organization’s argument is that the freezing of salaries results in the continued payment of pre-existing salaries with no injurious effect. However, an argument to the same effect in relation to a salary freeze was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3740, consideration 11. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis that, with one important qualification, is apt to apply in the present case. The qualification is this. In the case leading to Judgment 3740 the complainants lodged internal appeals against ‘the individual administrative decisions to apply to [each complainant] the statutory decision consisting of the revision of the remuneration of the [General Service category] Staff stationed in Rome’ as reflected in their respective February 2013 pay slips. Challenging a pay slip is an orthodox and accepted mechanism whereby an individual staff member can challenge a general decision as and when it is implemented in a way that affects or is likely to affect that individual staff member.
    4. In the present case, the complainants’ causes of action are not based on pay slips. They seek to challenge the general decision embodied in the Administrative Order of 1 October 2014 vide Dossier 2-1 New Delhi. They cannot do so. The distinction between challenging a general decision and challenging the implementation of the general decision as applied to an individual staff member is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests. It is a distinction rooted in the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal must act within the limits established by the Statute. There are many statements in the Tribunal’s case law about the nature of this jurisdiction and its limits. One example of a comparatively recent discussion of those limits and how they arise from the Statute is found in Judgment 3642, consideration 11. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3760, consideration 6: ‘[t]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11).’”
    It bears repeating that the need to challenge an individual decision is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests but rather arises from the nature of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. For example, in the present case, the relief the complainants seek includes setting aside the decision of the Director-General dated 5 September 2017 and rescinding the results of the 2013 salary survey as announced in the email of 7 October 2014. But orders of this type would apply to all staff affected by both the decision of 5 September 2017 and the email of 7 October 2014 irrespective of whether those staff agreed to or supported that outcome.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 522, 663, 1618, 2244, 3427, 3642, 3736, 3740, 3760, 3921, 3931

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;



  • Judgment 4138


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of WIPO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from WIPO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; pay slip;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
    “[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
    “Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;



  • Judgment 4137


    128th Session, 2019
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of the ITU to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from the ITU’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; pay slip;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
    “Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
    “[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;



  • Judgment 4136


    128th Session, 2019
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of IOM to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from IOM’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; pay slip;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted immediately. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
    “[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
    “Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;



  • Judgment 4135


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
    “[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
    “Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of WHO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from WHO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; pay slip;



  • Judgment 4134


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of the ILO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from the ILO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; pay slip;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
    “[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
    “Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160

    Keywords:

    general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s mandate deriving from its Statute is, fundamentally, to resolve individual disputes between an organization and one or a number of members or former members of its staff. Over the life of the Tribunal a matrix of legal principles has been developed and applied by the Tribunal to ensure just and principled outcomes both from the perspective of members of staff and also the perspective of organizations as employers. In its judgments the Tribunal has recognised and accepted the existence of the United Nations common system and respected its objectives. However, the existence of the United Nations common system and a desire to maintain its integrity should not, in itself, compromise the Tribunal’s adjudication of individual disputes in any particular case or series of cases involving the application of its principles. Indeed, in Judgment 2303, consideration 7, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument of the organization that considerable inconvenience arose from an earlier judgment (Judgment 1713) and it was virtually impossible for the organization to depart from the scale recommended by the ICSC. The Tribunal has to recognise that an organization’s legal obligations arising from the operation of the common system could have legal ramifications for an organization that inform or even determine the resolution of any particular dispute. However notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal must uphold a plea from a staff member or members if it is established that the organization has acted unlawfully.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 2303

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;



  • Judgment 4119


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint dismissed; decision quashed; dependent child; education expenses; general decision;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that a member of staff cannot challenge, by way of a complaint in the Tribunal, a general decision unless and until it is applied to that staff member with adverse legal consequences (see Judgment 4016, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). That case law is rooted in the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to deal with disputes concerning, relevantly, the alleged non-observance of the Staff Regulations or of the official’s terms of appointment. In a case such as the present there would have been, at least arguably, a non-observance of the Service Regulations at the moment the complainant was not paid the allowance because of the age of his children. That might have been so because, amongst other reasons, the amendment was not lawfully made or the Service Regulations, properly construed, conferred the allowance beyond the time identified in the amended Circular. However before the payment of the allowance ceased, no issue would arise about the non-observance of the Service Regulations. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4016

    Keywords:

    allowance; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4075


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to amend the methodology used for the calculation of the tax equalization payments made to eligible staff members.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see, for example, Judgments 3427, under 31, 4028, under 3, 3628, under 4, and 3291, under 8). It is clear that the decision to amend the calculation of the tax equalization payments is a decision of general application that would necessarily require implementation through an individual decision to have any effect on a staff member. It follows that the decision was not open to challenge by the complainant until the new methodology was applied to calculate the amount of the tax equalization payment due to her for a particular year. This was not the case at the time the complainant submitted her Request for Resolution. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints “alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment [...] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Administration’s [...] decision was a decision of general application and was not applied to the complainant through an individual decision, the complaint is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence and is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3427, 3628, 4028

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; tax; tax equalization;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; general decision; individual decision; member state; tax; tax equalization;



  • Judgment 4028


    126th Session, 2018
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    general decision;

    Considerations 3, 5, 6

    Extract:

    The complainants request the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10. However, 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 Judgment 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein)”. In these circumstances, the claims seeking the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10 are irreceivable and must be dismissed. [...]
    Since the claims seeking the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10 must be dismissed, as stated in consideration 3 above, the same applies to the claims directed against the Secretary-General’s final decision insofar as it concerns the decisions of 23 July 2014 on the requests for review that were directed solely against the aforementioned service order.
    Ms F. has not challenged any individual decision implementing Service Order No. 14/10. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable.
    However, Ms D. and Mr D. submitted requests for review of their pay slips reflecting an increase in the deduction for health insurance. Ms D. submitted a further request for review of a calculation of reimbursements of health-related expenses which showed that a deductible had been applied. These decisions are individual decisions implementing Service Order No. 14/10 which, as stated above, are open to appeal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 4016


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Eurocontrol’s objections to receivability are unfounded. The complainant was directly and immediately adversely affected by the Director General’s decision that did not allow him to remain in service beyond the age of 55, as he had requested. The legal basis of the Director General’s impugned decision that adversely affected the complainant was paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE, which is a provision of general application. “According to th[e] case law, a complainant can impugn a decision only if it directly affects her/him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her/him, but she/he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action.” (See Judgment 3291, under 8, and the case law cited therein.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision;



  • Judgment 4009


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The adoption of an establishment table is a general decision which, according to the case law, cannot be impugned if it requires individual implementing decisions, in which case only the latter may be impugned (see Judgments 3736, under 3, and 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein). However, the decision not to extend the complainant’s fixed-term contract but to offer him a Project Staff contract is an individual decision implementing the amendment of the establishment table and, in support of his claims directed against that decision, the complainant is entitled to challenge the lawfulness of the said amendment, which formed the basis of the decision in question.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 4008


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The adoption of an establishment table is a general decision which, according to the case law, cannot be impugned if it requires individual implementing decisions, in which case only the latter may be impugned (see Judgments 3736, under 3, and 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein). However, the decision not to extend the complainant’s fixed-term contract but to offer her a Project Staff contract is an individual decision implementing the amendment of the establishment table and, in support of her claims directed against that decision, the complainant is entitled to challenge the lawfulness of the said amendment, which formed the basis of the decision in question.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 3941


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a Circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; general decision;



  • Judgment 3931


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the decision to apply new salary scales in New Dehli as from 1 November 2014, which show a salary freeze for staff members already in service and a lower salary for new staff.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In the present case, the complainants’ causes of action are not based on pay slips. They seek to challenge the general decision embodied in the Administrative Order of 1 October 2014 vide Dossier 2-1 New Delhi. They cannot do so. The distinction between challenging a general decision and challenging the implementation of the general decision as applied to an individual staff member is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests. It is a distinction rooted in the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal must act within the limits established by the Statute. There are many statements in the Tribunal’s case law about the nature of this jurisdiction and its limits. One example of a comparatively recent discussion of those limits and how they arise from the Statute is found in Judgment 3642, consideration 11. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3760, consideration 6: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3642, 3760

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 3921


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    As to the complainant’s right to maintain these proceedings on behalf of the staff of the Global Fund in his capacity as a member of the Staff Council, there is some support for the proposition he can do so in earlier jurisprudence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 5). However that judgment does not reflect the Tribunal’s current case law (see, for example, Judgments 3515, consideration 3, and 3642, considerations 9 to 12 and 14). The adoption of the new arrangements in relation to salary structure and grading system was a general decision requiring implementation for each staff member. That general decision cannot be challenged by an individual staff member even if that individual is a member of the staff committee unless and until the general decision is implemented. That is not to say, it cannot be challenged when implemented by challenging a payslip that reflects its implementation. A recent example concerned a salary freeze where the complainants were able to challenge the general decision by challenging its implementation in a payslip. While the general decision to freeze salaries was not immediately reflected in the payslips (the complainants’ salaries remained the same and the freeze would only operate in the future), the Tribunal was able to conclude, in that case, that the general decision as implemented in the payslips was liable to cause injury because the decision to freeze salaries would necessarily negatively impact on the salaries in due course (see Judgment 3740, consideration 11). Nonetheless, as a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3168, 3515, 3642, 3740

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; individual decision; locus standi; scale; staff representative;



  • 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;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    As the decision of the Director-General to amend the MBF Rules was not taken in compliance with the amendment provisions in these Rules […] and, in particular, did not obtain the approval of the General Assembly of Participants, the decision was unlawful and will be set aside. It follows that the amendments to these Rules are of no force or effect. The complainants are entitled to an award of moral damages for the Organization’s complete disregard of the MBF’s statutory provisions and the resulting unlawful decision.

    Keywords:

    general decision; moral injury;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; general decision;



  • Judgment 3760


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to amend the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; general decision;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant relies on Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute as support for the proposition that a “complainant may plead the unlawfulness of an administrative decision affecting a class of officials”. […] Article VII, paragraph 2, serves to establish the time limit and when the time limit starts to run for filing a complaint against two types of decisions. The Tribunal has recognised that the words “a decision affecting a class of officials” might, viewed in isolation, be treated as a reference to a general decision, whether or not it affects individual rights (see Judgment 1134, under 4). However, any particular provision of the Statute must be construed having regard to the Statute as a whole. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11). The reference to “a decision affecting a class of officials” is to a decision which may have affected the rights of a number of individual officials in the same or a similar way.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1134, 3642

    Keywords:

    general decision;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top