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

Administrative decision (708,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 34

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4572


    134th Session, 2022
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Le requérant conteste le rejet de son recours dans lequel il avait exposé notamment le préjudice moral qu’il subissait du fait de l’entrée en vigueur de nouvelles dispositions réglementaires.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [L]e requérant demande l’annulation de l’avis de la Commission de recours ayant précédé la décision du 16 juin 2021. Cette conclusion doit également être rejetée comme manifestement irrecevable car, selon une jurisprudence constante, un tel avis ne constitue pas un acte faisant grief et n’est donc pas susceptible de recours (voir le jugement 4477, au considérant 11, et la jurisprudence citée).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4477

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4540


    134th Session, 2022
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from its Statute. In an early case it was described as “a [c]ourt of limited jurisdiction [...] bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence” (see Judgment 67, consideration 3). One of the Tribunal’s central roles, founded on Article II of the Statute, is to enforce compliance with staff regulations where they have not been observed. The touchstone of its jurisdiction is, in this respect, lawfully adopted staff regulations or rules of international organisations. The provisions in the staff regulations and rules are the starting point in the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Staff Rule 1230.7.2 which provides that the final decision in an appeal is made by the Director, must be respected and given full effect. The Director was authorised to make the decision in the appeal in the present case and her decision was not tainted by illegality as alleged by the complainant.
    Cases do arise in the Tribunal where the decision appealed against and the decision in the appeal are made by the same person, but the latter decision involves a rejection of recommendations of the appeal body. The discussion in the preceding consideration is not intended to suggest that in such cases there is no real scrutiny by the Tribunal of that latter decision and the reasons given. To the contrary, there is. The Tribunal’s case law is replete with examples where the motivation for the rejection has been found to be inadequate and the decision in the appeal has been set aside (see, for example, Judgments 4427, consideration 10, 4259, considerations 11 and 12, and 4062, consideration 4). This approach has the effect of respecting rules conferring, ordinarily, on the executive head of an organisation the power to make the final decision in an appeal even if an appeal from a decision of that person, while recognising the vitally important role appeal bodies play and the need to give considerable weight to findings and recommendations they make.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 4062, 4259, 4427

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; conflict of interest; final decision;



  • Judgment 4535


    134th Session, 2022
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate him from service on 31 October 2018, being the date on which he reached his retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The exhibit containing the memorandum of 9 November 2018 […] also contained the decision of the Director-General signed on 13 November 2018. The format of the memorandum is not atypical in administrative decision-making, particularly by senior officials. The format involves a brief written by a subordinate setting out the facts even if in a summary way and, if qualified, advancing their own preliminary views about the merits of the case being addressed (or repeats in a summary way the views of other qualified officials) while inviting the senior official to make their own decision often by electing between one or a number of choices to be simply signified by, literally, ticking a box. In this case, the Director-General did just that by ticking a box saying that he did not grant the exceptional extension for the complainant. However, it cannot be inferred, as the complainant invites, that the Director-General did not bring to bear his own views and reach his own conclusion, after reading the memorandum of 9 November 2018, about whether the complainant’s appointment should be extended notwithstanding the view recorded in the memorandum that HRD did not support granting the exceptional extension.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;



  • Judgment 4531


    134th Session, 2022
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 31 August 2018, being the date on which she reached her retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of her appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [T]he failure of the Director-General to initially consider the extension request himself, was remedied by him doing so in the administrative review. An aspect of this is reflected in the Tribunal’s case law, which decides that the mere fact that a decision was initially flawed but was later corrected does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury (see Judgment 4156, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; flaw; moral damages;



  • Judgment 4499


    134th Session, 2022
    Customs Co-operation Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de mettre fin à son engagement par suite de la suppression de son poste.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    En vertu de la jurisprudence du Tribunal, tout acte émanant d’un agent d’une organisation internationale qui déploie un effet juridique constitue une […] décision [administrative] (voir, par exemple, les jugements 532, au considérant 3, 1674, au considérant 6 a), 2573, au considérant 10, ou 3141, au considérant 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 1674, 2573, 3141

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;



  • Judgment 4454


    133rd Session, 2022
    World Tourism Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to reject his allegations of misconduct on the part of the Secretary-General.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In its pleas UNWTO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the basis that there was no relevant administrative decision by the Ethics Officer. At least implicitly there was (see, for example, Judgment 3747, consideration 5), and it involved a determination that there had been no harassment or retaliation, which was manifest by the decision to close, and thus finalise, the complaints.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3747

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; harassment; investigation;



  • Judgment 4417


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests instructions she received concerning patent applications.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    In consideration 11 of Judgment 3053, the Tribunal held, among other things, that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal. In short, such decisions are not appealable and do not create a cause of action. The Tribunal also held, in consideration 10 of Judgment 3053, that proposals and/or decisions relating to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not directly affect the relationship of staff members with the Organisation, although, as recognised in Judgment 2874, decisions or proposals as to the implementation of changes to the law and/or procedures may well do so.
    The Tribunal does not see any reason to depart from the conclusions stated in the foregoing consideration.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2874, 3053

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action;



  • Judgment 4399


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant was not notified of this transfer until the meeting of 12 November 2009 at which he was informed orally that the decision had been taken. Despite the Organisation’s arguments to the contrary, that notification cannot be considered as a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4368


    131st Session, 2021
    International Olive Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal underlines [...] that the situation [...] resulting from the fact that different qualification requirements were specified in the provisions applicable to the competition, was not only liable to introduce a regrettable ambiguity into the determination of selection procedures for candidates – as the IOC appeared to consider – but was quite simply unlawful. Indeed, the Executive Director could not lawfully decide, while allowing the qualification requirements in the job description to remain in force, to specify different requirements in the competition notice, since the statement in the memorandum of 1 December 2016 to the effect that the provisions set out in that notice would not be applied insofar as they were contrary to those specified in the job description was not capable of remedying their unlawfulness.
    Since the contested competition had been opened unlawfully, the requirement that administrative decisions be taken lawfully dictated that it be cancelled, as it would otherwise have led to an appointment to the post in question which would itself inevitably have been unlawful.
    This implies not only that the decision [...] was taken in the interest of the service and hence based on a legitimate reason, so that, pursuant to the [Tribunal's] case law [...], the Executive Director was entitled to adopt it, but also that, in this case, he was in fact bound to do so.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competition; lawfulness of a measure;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The main purpose of the statement of reasons for an administrative decision is precisely to enable the staff member concerned to know the reasons for that decision so that she or he can decide whether to exercise her or his right of appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1817, consideration 6, 3117, consideration 9, 3617, consideration 5, or 3914, consideration 15). Thus, while it is true that the Tribunal’s case law accepts that the reasons for a decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself and can be contained in other documents, this is plainly on the condition that those documents are also communicated to the official concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2112, consideration 5, 2927, consideration 7, or 4081, consideration 5).
    Since the IOC did not comply with this requirement, the complainant’s right of appeal was breached, and the fact that the complainant was provided with the [...] note in these proceedings could not, in the Tribunal’s view, suffice to rectify the effects of that breach in this case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 2112, 2927, 3117, 3617, 3914, 4081

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4297


    130th Session, 2020
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his formal complaint of harassment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant suggests he would have been prejudiced by advice he said he received from the OPCW that his challenges to the appointment of the investigators did not involve a reviewable administrative decision and thus, it is said, he waived the right to file a complaint before the Tribunal in relation to the decision concerning the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. The submission fails to recognise that a decision concerning the composition of an investigating panel is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision and may, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the final decision (see, for example, Judgment 4131, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4293


    130th Session, 2020
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    UNIDO submits that the complainant’s challenge to the decision to advertise the P-2 post externally is irreceivable. It argues that that decision was a separate and distinct decision which the complainant should have appealed at the time that the vacancy was announced. This argument is unsustainable. The Tribunal stated, in consideration 17 of Judgment 4008, that, ordinarily, a vacancy announcement is neither a final administrative decision nor a decision which adversely affects an individual staff member. The complainant therefore properly contested the vacancy announcement at the time that he did.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4008

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; new claim; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 4283


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The general principle that an official has the right to be heard before an individual decision that adversely affects her or him is taken plainly cannot be applied to an impersonal decision which is collective in scope, such as the cancellation of a competition.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competition cancelled; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4259


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The duty to provide reasons for an administrative decision that adversely affects an official is a fundamental requirement in international civil service law and the Tribunal’s case law requires such a decision to be motivated in order for the official to know the basis on which it was taken and to facilitate her or him to formulate an appeal from the decision if necessary. However, the Tribunal has accepted that the reasons for a decision may be provided in response to a subsequent challenge of the decision (see, for example, Judgment 3662, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3662

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4225


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her requests to reclassify her post and to grant her a special post allowance at grade P-3.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4201


    128th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Staff Association to reject his application for legal support in connection with a complaint he had filed with the Tribunal.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; ratione materiae; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4168


    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Eurocontrol could not retroactively reduce it without breaching the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts (see Judgment 3185, under 7(b)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; non-retroactivity;



  • Judgment 4164


    128th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    It is well established by the case law that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; that they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review, and that how extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4104


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence; complaint dismissed; impugned decision; ratione materiae;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 14.11.2022 ^ top