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

Cause of action (77,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 235

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >

  • Judgment 4439


    132nd Session, 2021
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;



  • Judgment 4431


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a decision of the Administrative Council introducing new rules for employees of the European Patent Office concerning the right to strike.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In concluding that the internal appeal was irreceivable, the Appeals Committee rejected any suggestion that CA/D 5/13 had an immediate and adverse effect on the complainant. However the gist of the complainant’s argument in relation to Article 65(1)(c) was that it had had such an effect and, at least quite clearly implicitly, on his (and his colleagues’) right to strike. The Tribunal, in its Judgment 3761, consideration 14, made clear that a general decision may, in certain circumstances, be impugned if it immediately and adversely affects individual rights. The complainant’s argument involved such a contention. The conclusion of the Appeals Committee that his appeal was manifestly irreceivable failed to consider this question and was thus legally flawed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; internal appeal; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 4430


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal case law to the effect that a general decision cannot be challenged by a staff member unless and until an individual decision is taken. But the Tribunal’s case law contains an exception or limitation. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3761 at consideration 14:
    “In general, [an administrative decision of general application] 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.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In the absence of any implementing decision, the question that then arises is whether, in relation to the complainants, there has been an immediate and adverse effect on individual rights. The Tribunal is satisfied there has been. Circular No. 347 did have an immediate and adverse effect on the complainants’ right to strike. It is immaterial that they did not go on strike in June 2013 or that circumstances had not arisen where one or a number of the provisions of the Circular operated on or applied to conduct of the complainants. The effect was immediate because, at the date of promulgation of the Circular, it legally constrained future exercise of the right to strike or imposed burdens to the same effect. The complaints are receivable.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; receivability of the complaint; right to strike;



  • Judgment 4422


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may impugn a decision only if it directly affects her or him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him, but she or he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated her or his cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 3291, consideration 8, and 4119, consideration 4). Accordingly, the complainants are entitled to challenge the individual decisions resulting from the increased pension contributions reflected in their subject payslips, as well as the lawfulness of general decision CA/D 10/13.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4119

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; pay slip;



  • Judgment 4419


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322

    Keywords:

    cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;



  • 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 4402


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.

    The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.

    The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;



  • Judgment 4397


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The Organisation challenges the receivability of the complaint insofar as the “reassignment” was based on the complainant’s wish to remain in Vienna. […]
    The complaint is receivable. The fact that the EPO was attempting to satisfy the complainant’s wish to remain in Vienna does not prevent her from contesting the resulting decision by which she was transferred to the specific post […].

    Keywords:

    cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4396


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff member who challenges an individual decision may, at the same time and in the same appeal, challenge the related underlying decision and that a staff member may, in challenging a decision that affects her or him directly, plead the unlawfulness of any general measure that affords the basis for it in law. A staff member may therefore impugn an administrative decision only if it directly affects her or him, but is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which generated their cause of action (see Judgment 3291, under 6 and 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision;



  • Judgment 4394


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision deriving from the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 to require the recipients of the new retirement pension for health reasons to cease performing gainful activities or employment or to refrain from performing such activities or employment.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    As acknowledged in the 17 July letters to the complainants, the amendments introduced by CA/D 2/15 were aimed at changing the complainants’ status. Specifically, as from 1 January 2016 the complainants would be granted a retirement pension for health reasons and would not be allowed to carry out gainful activities or employment, which had been permitted under their previous status, and this change was contrary to their interests. As the Tribunal has said before, “there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant’s position” (see Judgments 1712, consideration 10, 2632, consideration 10, and 3337, consideration 7). The Tribunal finds that the notification of the complainants’ status change contained in the 17 July letters entitled “Implementation of Administrative Council decision CA/D 2/15 dated 26 March 2015: transitional measures for 2015” was reasonably construed by the complainants as the implementation of the general decision, triggering the count towards the deadlines for filing their requests for review.

    In light of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Appeals Committee erred in recommending to summarily dismiss the complainants’ internal appeals as “manifestly irreceivable” for failure to establish a cause of action and the President of the Office erred when he endorsed that recommendation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712, 2632, 3337

    Keywords:

    cause of action;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; cause of action; complaint allowed;



  • Judgment 4356


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has accepted that a staff member can challenge a selection process even if the position was ultimately not filled (see Judgment 4033), and that a flawed selection process can result in the loss of a valuable opportunity to be appointed (see Judgment 4098).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4033, 4098

    Keywords:

    cause of action; loss of opportunity; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4347


    131st Session, 2021
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    The complainant also submits that the decision is vitiated by an error of law, as the Board of Appeal was improperly composed and the appointment of a new Board of Appeal led to an egregious delay in the proceedings. The Tribunal finds that the composition of the Board of Appeal which reviewed his appeal was lawful and the delays in reconfiguring the Board of Appeal were not egregious. The length of the delay was principally determined by the complainant’s request to change the composition of the panel which was proposed to him on 26 May 2016. He requested the change as he objected to the proposal that the Board of Appeal members remain on the Board of Appeal beyond the expiry of their mandates, despite assurances that they had agreed to the extension of their appointments at the Organization’s request and with the knowledge and concurrence of the Staff Association. Therefore, the appeal was stayed, pending new elections for the Board of Appeal members nominated by the Staff Association. While it took a year to finalize the composition of the new panel, the Board of Appeal, once properly composed, rendered its preliminary report within three months and its final report within five months of receiving the Director’s 27 December 2017 decision. Moreover, the complainant has not provided convincing evidence of any negative effect on him caused by the delay in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; delay; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4342


    131st Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the position of Deputy General Counsel.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to select the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those preliminary steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876

    Keywords:

    cause of action; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4341


    131st Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for the position of General Counsel.

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the recommendation of the Board was based on grossly inadequate reasoning, referring to Judgment 3995, consideration 4. The Tribunal accepts this is correct. It is to be recalled that the Board said it would not consider the complainant’s case on the merits because he had participated willingly and without objection in the selection process along the way. This led the Board to conclude, for no discernible reason, the complainant did not have a legally protected interest in the matter. The case law of the Tribunal repeatedly establishes that a staff member who has been unsuccessful in a competition has the legal right to challenge the lawfulness of the competition (see Judgments 1832, consideration 3(b)(2), and 3449, consideration 2) and internal appeals bodies have a corresponding duty to consider the challenge (see, for example, Judgment 3590, consideration 2). [...]
    Moreover the fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to shortlist the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.
    The approach of the Board involved an error of law and its effective adoption by the President is tainted by the same error (see Judgment 3490, consideration 18). IFAD defends the President’s approach by saying firstly, he had no power to refer the matter back to the Board and secondly and in any event the President “appraised the [Board]’s Report and recommendations in light of all the documentation he had at his disposal in relation to the [c]omplainant’s appeal”. If the President did not have power to refer the matter back to the Board, he had an obligation to motivate his decision to dismiss the appeal in the face of no motivation of substance from the Board itself. The President did not do so.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3449, 3490, 3590, 3876, 3995

    Keywords:

    cause of action; internal appeals body; motivation; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4337


    131st Session, 2021
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her requests for reinstatement.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; former official; reinstatement;

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute states that the “Tribunal shall [...] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3426, consideration 16:
    “Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint ‘must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations’ [...]” (Citation omitted.)
    As the Tribunal stated recently in Judgment 4317, consideration 3, “[i]f [a] complainant does not allege the violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint”.
    In her submissions, the complainant did not identify any right to reinstatement accruing from her former employment. Indeed, an official who resigns does not have the right to be later reinstated. As well, she did not allege that the rejection of her request for reinstatement violated any terms of her former employment. The fact that she contrived and received a final decision from the Organization rejecting her unfounded request is not sufficient to make her complaint receivable before the Tribunal. As the complaint does not disclose a cause of action as required in Article II of the Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint and it will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 4317

    Keywords:

    cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4329


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the EPO, requested the President of the Office to provide him with a written declaration affirming that he was not a target of certain practices alleged in press articles.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.
    The complainant requested the President of the Office to provide him with a written declaration affirming that he was not a target of certain practices alleged in press articles. There is no obligation in the Service Regulations for the President to issue such a declaration and therefore the decision not to grant such a request does not amount to “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.
    Similarly, the complainant did not affirm that his home equipment was illegally monitored. In fact, his allegation that his equipment at home was monitored by the EPO is purely hypothetical and he asks that this hypothetical violation should cease. Again, he does not allege “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4322


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the appointments of members of the General Advisory Committee for 2014.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; member of an internal body;

    Considerations 7-9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that the present case raises a threshold issue that needs to be resolved: whether the complainants’ status as members of the GAC gives them a cause of action to challenge the appointment of other GAC members.
    [...]
    Although the parties did not raise the question before the Tribunal, the Tribunal must, in this case, address the preliminary issue of the complainants’ cause of action of its own motion. Indeed, the existence of a cause of action is a necessary precondition for the Tribunal’s competence. If a complainant does not allege a violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The Tribunal’s case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability (see, for example, Judgments 3426, under 16, 3428, under 11, and 3642, under 11).
    Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the staff regulations applicable to them. In accordance with this provision, a member of an advisory body within an international organization, acting in that capacity, may only raise before the Tribunal defects which have affected her/his prerogatives as a member of the body as defined by the internal provisions (see, for example, Judgment 3921, under 6 and 9). The composition of an advisory body does not, except in cases involving manifest perversity, affect the prerogatives of that body. In the present case, the complainants do not specifically allege any non-observance of their terms of appointment or the rules applicable to the GAC. Moreover, the appointment of the Administration’s representatives as members of the GAC does not show any manifest perversity. The impugned decision does not have any legal effect on the complainants’ status (see Judgments 2952, under 3, and 3198, under 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2952, 3198, 3426, 3428, 3642, 3921

    Keywords:

    cause of action; member of an internal body;



  • Judgment 4320


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her application for a vacant post on the grounds that, as the holder of a fixed-term contract, she was not eligible to participate in the competition process.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4317


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board, challenges the decision not to allow a staff member holding a fixed-term contract to compete for a permanent post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competition; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    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, Judgments 3921, consideration 6, and 3168, consideration 9). In accordance with this case law, a member of a board within an international organization, acting in this capacity, may only raise with the Tribunal the defects that have affected her or his prerogatives as a member of the board as defined by the internal provisions (see above-mentioned Judgment 3921, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3921

    Keywords:

    cause of action; member of an internal body;

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that the present case raises two connected threshold issues which need to be resolved: a) whether the complainant’s cause of action can be considered by the Tribunal even though this issue has not been raised by the parties; b) if the answer is yes, whether the complainant has the requisite standing to bring this complaint.
    The Tribunal’s answer is affirmative to the first question and negative to the second one.
    The Tribunal must, in this case, raise the preliminary issue of the complainant’s cause of action of its own motion, because the existence of a cause of action is a necessary pre-condition for the Tribunal’s competence. If the complainant does not allege the violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The Tribunal’s case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability (see Judgments 3426, consideration 16, 3428, consideration 11, 3642, consideration 11, 3648, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 3428, 3642, 3648

    Keywords:

    cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4303


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [T]he impugned decision was based on an affirmative finding that the decision to abolish the complainant’s post was tainted by illegality including prejudice towards the complainant. In a case such as the present, a challenge to a final administrative decision is a challenge to the decision itself and at least ordinarily not the reasons on which the decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 7), nor to any alleged procedural flaws leading to a decision which vindicates the complainant’s grievance.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997

    Keywords:

    cause of action; impugned decision;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top