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

Individual decision (38,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Individual decision
Total judgments found: 86

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 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 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 4160


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he complaint does not seek to challenge WIPO’s general policy in the matter but the application of this policy to the complainant’s particular case and, since it is based on the terms of the complainant’s employment contract or the rules and regulations governing the staff of the Organization, it clearly comes within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    individual decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4159


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract of employment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant’s claims regarding the redefinition of his employment relationship do not seek to challenge WIPO’s general policy in the matter but the application of this policy to the complainant’s particular case and, since they are based on the terms of the complainant’s employment contract or the rules and regulations governing the staff of the Organization, they clearly come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    individual decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • 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 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;



  • 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;



  • 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 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 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 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 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;



  • Judgment 4121


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; pay slip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;



  • 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.

    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.

    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 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 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 3428


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The decisions of the Administrative Council [...] are regulatory texts or, in other words, general decisions governing all officials subject to them. As the Tribunal has consistently held, where such texts must ordinarily be followed by individual implementing decisions, [...] they are not open to challenge before the Tribunal. When these texts are adopted, they affect the protected personal interests of individual employees only in theory, and it is not until a subsequent individual decision is taken that they produce a practical legal effect. It is only the latter decision which may form the subject of a complaint before the Tribunal, and if the official concerned wishes to challenge the regulatory text which affords the basis for it in law, he must plead the unlawfulness of that decision in this complaint (see, for example, Judgments 1786, under 5, 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, 2822, under 6, 2953, under 2, and, for recent confirmation of this case law, the aforementioned Judgment 3291, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786, 1852, 2379, 2822, 2953, 3291

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 3427


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.

    Consideration 32

    Extract:

    The complainants contend that they have a direct interest in decision CA/D 14/08 because it concerns the tax adjustments of employees recruited before 1 January 2009. It does not follow from the fact that a complainant has an interest either direct or otherwise in a decision that the decision has been applied to the complainant and that it has been applied in a manner prejudicial to the complainant.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; individual decision; lack of injury; tax;

    Considerations 35-36

    Extract:

    As concerns the complaints brought by staff members in their respective staff representative capacities, the determinative issue centres on the nature of the contested decisions. In Judgment 1451, under 20, and later in Judgment 1618, under 5, the Tribunal drew a distinction between “a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service” that “take the form of individual implementing decisions” that each employee may later challenge and those decisions that do not give rise to implementing decisions and involve matters of common concern to all staff. In the latter case a challenge to the general decision by a staff representative may be receivable.
    However, in the present case, it is clear that the contested decisions are decisions of general application subject to individual implementation. Until a decision of general application is implemented it cannot be said to have been applied in a prejudicial manner to a staff member and, consequently, as has been consistently held, cannot be attacked (see Judgment 2822, under 6, citing Judgment 1852). The fact of filing their complaints in their staff representative capacities does not overcome the fact of the nature of the contested decisions being ones of general application that at the material time had not been implemented. Accordingly, the complaints filed by the staff members in their representative capacities are irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618, 1852, 2822

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; locus standi; staff representative;

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law is clear that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see Judgment 2953, under 2). And, it is equally clear that a complainant may challenge the lawfulness of a general decision forming the legal basis of the individual decision which the complainant is seeking to have quashed (see Judgment 2793, under 13, and Judgment 3428, under 11, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2793, 2953, 3428

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision; lack of injury;

    Consideration 34

    Extract:

    The Tribunal concludes that as decision CA/D 14/08 has not been individually implemented and the complainants have not shown a cause of action, the complaints against this decision will be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    individual decision; lack of injury; no cause of action;



  • 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 3126


    113th Session, 2012
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "The rule against double jeopardy does not prevent disciplinary and non-disciplinary consequences attaching to the same acts or events. However, it does preclude the imposition of further disciplinary measures for acts or omissions that have already attracted a disciplinary sanction."

    Keywords:

    cause; consequence; definition; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; individual decision; organisation's duties;

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


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top