Cause of action (77,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 273
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
Judgment 2210
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(c) and (d)
Extract:
The Agency considers that the complainant has no cause of action (to challenge the outcome of a competition) since she holds a post corresponding to her wishes and did not apply for a post which is, according to the organisation, very similar to the disputed post. The Tribunal states that: "all staff members are entitled to compete in accordance with the conditions laid down in the applicable provisions. Staff members are free to choose whether or not to apply for a competition, provided that they do not abuse this right."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; competition; post; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2204
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Organisation "expresses doubt as to the locus standi of most of the complainants, who are still far from the age of retirement [...]. In fact, all the complainants, regardless of their age, have an obvious interest in ascertaining as soon as possible the conditions on which the pension rights acquired by virtue of their employment prior to joining [the Organisation] may be transferred to their new pension scheme."
Keywords:
age limit; cause of action; condition; pension; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; retirement; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2151
93rd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In the Tribunal's view, the fact that [...] two staff members [...] filed no internal appeal does not prevent them from applying to intervene (see Judgment 518). The only issue to be resolved is whether the organisation's decisions on post classification apply to them. [...] This judgment should be extended to them only insofar as they have an interest, on account of their de jure and de facto position regarding post classification, in benefiting from the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 518
Keywords:
cause of action; enforcement; internal remedies exhausted; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"It is elementary that where a reason is given for taking a decision which is adverse to the interests of a staff member the organisation is held to that reason and cannot later seek to justify its action on other grounds."
Keywords:
cause of action; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2065
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."
Keywords:
application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
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 1983
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not extended. "It is true that the complainant was aware of the organization's intentions, having been informed of them several times, in particular, in a talk with the Director of the [organization's] service in France on 6 November 1997 and by the fax messages of 11 and 20 November 1997. Nevertheless, she was right to wait for official notification of an administrative decision from the competent authorities of [the organization] before challenging the measure. Although the letter of 16 January 1998 signed by the Director of the [organization's] service in France appears to be merely a letter of confirmation, it is the only official administrative decision adversely affecting the complainant. Her letter of 6 February 1998 seeking a review of it was therefore in time."
Keywords:
cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."
Keywords:
career; cause of action; decision; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1927
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"While the complaint may seem to show no cause of action, since the decision to suspend him has been revoked, the measure did have material - although not financial - and particularly moral consequences during the period for which it was in effect. Certain of the complainant's duties were withdrawn, although he continued to receive full pay. In these conditions, the complaint does still show cause for action [...]."
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; injury; material injury; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; suspension; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 1899
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Disciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one."
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; official; other; refusal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 1896
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
The complainants contest the Administrative Council's decision refusing to allow a staff representative on the Appeals Committee which can hear appeals against decisions of the Council. "Decisions of a general thrust relating to the attributions of power can be challenged forthwith, without having to wait until the body, whose composition is contested, delivers an unfavourable individual decision to the appellant".
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; decision; general decision; individual decision; internal appeals body; staff representative;
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 1804
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The promotion of Mr C., presented as the fulfilment of a promise made to him on recruitment, gave rise to a decision adopted on 7 December 1994. "Only that decision was notified to the staff. So the complainants, who were unaware of the promise, were in good faith in challenging the promotion on the grounds that it was in breach of the Rule it actually cited. So they were right in saying that Mr C. had been promoted to A4 even though he did not fully qualify under the [relevant] rules [...]. Because of the unusual circumstances in which Mr C. was promoted the complainants were also right to challenge the decision: the [Organization] had on the face of it failed to observe the general principle of equal treatment because in promoting Mr C. it did not abide by the requirements of the Service Regulations or by the criteria for promotion to which the complainants were themselves subject. The conclusion is that the complainants did suffer moral injury and each of them is entitled under that head to [compensation]".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; condition; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1798
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A strong line of precedent has it that payslips are individual decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal. [...] Even though the council has reserved its right to alter pay for July 1996 later, and retroactively, the impugned decisions do show a cause of action."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; discretion; executive body; individual decision; payslip; tribunal;
Judgment 1786
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, 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'. That ruling does not allow direct challenge to a general decision of a kind that must ordinarily be given effect by individual decision [see Judgment 1000]. As the Tribunal said in Judgments 624 [...] and 663 [...] and has often said since, the staff member must impugn an individual decision applying a general one and, if need be, may for that purpose challenge the lawfulness of the general one without any risk of being told that such challenge is time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 663, 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1712
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"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."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; cause of action; complainant; consequence; effect; injury; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
|
