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

Lack of injury (47,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Lack of injury
Total judgments found: 85

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

  • 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;

    Consideration 33

    Extract:

    The Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, where a “complainant has failed to demonstrate that the contested administrative actions have caused him any injury to his health, financially or otherwise, or that it is liable to cause him injury, the complainant does not have a cause of action”. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168

    Keywords:

    cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action;

    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 3426


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    In the present case, the complainants have not shown that decision CA/D 25/07 has caused them or is liable to cause them any injury. The effect of the decision was budgetary only. The shift of the financial responsibility for the tax adjustment did not in any way adversely affect either of the complainants and will not have any adverse effect in the future.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; lack of injury;



  • Judgment 3258


    116th Session, 2014
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants argued that their rights of staff representatives had been violated, but their claim for pecuniary compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    collective rights; complaint dismissed; facilities; lack of injury;



  • Judgment 3206


    115th Session, 2013
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    “[T]he complainant has no cause of action in seeking the repayment of [the] emoluments [paid to the colleague whose appointment he challenges] or calling into question her pension rights, as these measures would have no bearing on his own situation (see, for example, Judgment 2281, under 4(a) and (b)).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2281

    Keywords:

    appointment; cause of action; lack of injury; locus standi; pension entitlements;



  • Judgment 3198


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the withdrawal from his personal file of the warnings concerning his productivity.

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "According to the case law of the Tribunal, no damages will be ordered where a decision does not hamper a career and the matter which was complained of has been withdrawn (see Judgment 1380, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    decision; evidence; lack of evidence; lack of injury; material damages; moral injury; no cause of action; professional injury; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 3157


    114th Session, 2013
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.

    Considerations 9 and 11

    Extract:

    "[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."

    Keywords:

    appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3118


    113th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; lack of injury;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, the receivability of a complaint does not depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules and regulations applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract."

    Keywords:

    lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2952


    109th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant does not allege the non-observance of any of the terms of his appointment or of any of the Staff Regulations applicable to him. Nor does he claim that the Agency has infringed his rights as a member of the Staff Committee. [...] Further, he does not claim to have suffered any loss, damage or other injury, and does not point to any decision affecting him directly or which would have legal consequences for him individually. Thus, he has not established any cause of action [...] or raised any matter that may be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2822


    107th Session, 2009
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In 2006 Eurocontrol approved a revision of the conditions of employment which redefined the functions and grades of Flight Data Operators. The complainant seeks, inter alia, renegotiated employment conditions and the award of temporary B4 grades to all Flight Data Operators.
    "[The] Tribunal cannot entertain the complainant's claim that all Flight Data Operators should be granted B4 grades [...]. [The] complainant alleges no breach of his employment conditions or of the applicable Staff Rules or Regulations. And as pointed out in Judgment 1852, 'a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2819


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant's dignity has been seriously injured, and consistently injured over a period of three and a half years, he has suffered no financial loss and his claims for compensation and for moral damages are excessive. [...] The complainant will be adequately compensated by an award of moral damages in the amount of 25,000 euros. There will be an award of costs of these proceedings and the internal appeal proceedings in the amount of 5,000 euros."

    Keywords:

    amount; complainant; costs; injury; lack of injury; material injury; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2720


    105th Session, 2008
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that the ITU, in its letter to the journalist, made "scandalous" attacks on the Tribunal. "The Tribunal will not respond to the arguments presented in the complaint regarding prejudice that it allegedly suffered itself as a result of the circulation of the disputed message. The issue raised in this regard, which has no direct bearing on the dispute between the complainant and the ITU regarding compliance with obligations arising from their contractual relationship, falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as restrictively defined in Article II of its Statute. Furthermore, the Tribunal could not rule on such arguments without breaching its duty of impartiality."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat statute; injury; lack of injury; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2324


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is not in doubt that the quashing or reversing of a decision may result in that decision being deprived of all legal consequences or effects. That is the case, for example, where a decision to withhold an automatic salary increment is reversed with effect from the date on which the increment would otherwise have been payable. In a case of that kind, the subsequent decision deprives the person concerned of a cause of action. And if there is no cause of action when a complaint is filed with this Tribunal, the complaint is, on that account, irreceivable. So much is clear from Judgments 1431 and 2065. But the mere fact that a final and substantive decision has been reversed or withdrawn does not deprive the previous decision of its character as a final and substantive decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1431, 2065

    Keywords:

    cause of action; consequence; decision; effect; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2027


    90th Session, 2001
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;



  • Judgment 2024


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The decision of the President of the European Patent Office complies with the requests the complainant had made in her internal appeals. "Therefore, the complainant has received satisfaction and shows no cause of action with respect to the impugned decision."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; decision; executive head; internal appeal; lack of injury; request by a party;



  • Judgment 1984


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct. He argues that the German criminal law would have taken into account mitigating circumstances, something the organisation failed to do. "Although under German criminal law these facts might remove or mitigate the penal nature that could attach to the offence of attempted fraud, when disciplinary sanctions are applied it is immaterial whether or not an act is criminal. Furthermore, the fact that the organisation in the end suffered no financial injury because it did not have to pay out money it did not owe, does not mean that the complainant's misconduct should not have been sanctioned."

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; domestic law; lack of injury; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; separation from service; serious misconduct; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1852


    87th Session, 1999
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law is consistent to the effect that a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him. [The present complaint] is a general attack which is not tied to any particular application of the impugned rules to the complainant. It will not therefore be considered by the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 1329, 1423

    Keywords:

    case law; cause of action; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1660


    83rd Session, 1997
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Association's third objection is that the complainants are challenging the adoption of rules and in any event cannot impute any present injury thereto. According to precedent an international civil servant may in exceptional circumstances challenge the lawfulness of a rule that has been applied to him. The notification to the complainants of the changes in the system of reckoning and paying their retirement pensions constituted individual application of rules adopted by the member States of EFTA and set out in the contract with [a private insurance company]. Even though, as the defendant says, the complainants cannot yet show any injury, they do have a cause of action and may challenge, howsoever they wish, the lawfulness of the new pension rules."

    Keywords:

    case law; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; executive body; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; pension; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1614


    82nd Session, 1997
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Contrary to what the complainant alleges, the reasons for abolishing her post were objective and had nothing to do with her own personality or performance. The decision cast no slight on her integrity and was no affront to her dignity. Her supervisors kept her informed orally and in writing about the progress of the reforms and about her own status. They thereby showed a wish to prepare her for the consequences and no bad faith may be imputed to them. The conclusion is that the defendant caused her no unnecessary or undue injury."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; duty to inform; good faith; lack of injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 1500


    80th Session, 1996
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant "argues that [the Internal Memorandum] is unlawful because it was not given the sort of publication that he says the case law and several international instruments required. But he did have access to the Memorandum since he asked the Director General [...] to apply it in his favour. So lack of wider publication caused him no injury [...]".

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; lack of injury; publication;



  • Judgment 1441


    79th Session, 1995
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant relies on a rule which says that members of the Disciplinary Committee [composed in this instance of staff members from headquarters and constituted there] should come from the staff of the Regional Office and have been locally recruited. The Tribunal considers that "the rule [in question] is not binding" and states that "in any event the complainant has failed to show how the membership of the committee [composed in this instance of staff members from headquarters and constituted there] might have proved prejudicial to the proper and independent consideration of his case."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 110.2(D)

    Keywords:

    advisory body; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty station; injury; lack of injury; safeguard;

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


 
Last updated: 23.10.2020 ^ top