Decision (24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision
Total judgments found: 424
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
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 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2003
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants did not challenge the initial decisions denying them an installation grant and therefore "those decisions became final and the complainants were barred from challenging them by filling up application forms years later and claiming the quashing of the decisions refusing them by implication the allowance for which their assignment to Maastricht made them eligible. The Joint Committee for Disputes was right to cite the principle of legal certainty which must govern relations between an organisation and its staff' and to note that it was not possible to [exempt] the persons concerned from the time bar, which the Tribunal is in any event bound to apply since it is mandatory'."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; effective date; exception; iloat statute; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1986
89th Session, 2000
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"A decision not to decide upon a request by an employee for the exercise of his alleged rights is nonetheless a decision. It may accordingly be impugned before the Tribunal but only within the time limits prescribed by Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute; those limits started to run on 18 November 1997. They were not suspended or revived by the complainants' repeated requests to the administration or by the latter's repeated refusals to make any substantive decision until the matter had been decided by the Council of the organisation. If the complainants were dissatisfied with the Director-General's decision not to decide, they should have filed their complaints with the Tribunal within ninety days of receiving such decision. Since they did not do so, they must now wait until they receive a substantive decision on the merits of their claim."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
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 1975
89th Session, 2000
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a security guard, was dismissed for committing a fault: he had disactivated an alarm button to prevent it from setting off inadvertently and had forgotten to tell his colleagues. "The oversight by the Personnel Department, which omitted to carry out the statutory medical examination [on cessation of service], does not affect the lawfulness of the impugned decision."
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; due process; effect; medical examination; misconduct; negligence; termination of employment;
Judgment 1969
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal will quash [...] a decision [of a discretionary nature] only if it was taken without authority, or if it was tainted with a procedural or formal flaw or based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
abuse of power; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
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 1911
88th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"It is a general principle of the international civil service that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract and that the reason must be given to the staff member [...]. An official whose fixed-term contract is reaching expiry must be informed in a timely manner of the real reasons for the decision not to renew it [...]. In this case a mere reference to a letter sent to the complainant nearly two years previously cannot, in the absence of any other indication as to the real reasons for the decision to be taken, exempt the observatory from stating the grounds clearly."
Keywords:
contract; date; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; separation from service;
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 1893
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organization. The Tribunal considers that "Judgment 1814 did not imply that his case succeeded on the merits; its sole objective was to send the case back to [the organization]'s competent bodies so that a lawful decision could be taken."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; flaw; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand;
Judgment 1892
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment sending the case back to the organisation for a new ruling on his appeal [...] must be disallowed because the [...] procedure necessitated by the judgment quashing the original decision was [...] implemented swiftly." [After a new recommendation by the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Director General rejected the complainant's new internal appeal three and a half months after the Tribunal's judgment that was then made the subject of an application for execution.]
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; delay; execution of judgment; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; remand; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organisation. The Tribunal considers that "it was appropriate to resume the procedure by referring the matter back to the Joint Committee for Disputes because it was the unlawful nature of the latter's opinion that led to the quashing of the decision. However, proper execution of the judgment did not necessarily imply recognition that the complainant's appeal was sound: all that was required was a new decision taken after due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; execution of judgment; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand; report;
Judgment 1888
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the review of administrative decisions taken by international organisations affecting the employment conditions of their employees. Where such decisions are found to be reviewable and where they have caused harm, the Tribunal will exercise its jurisdiction to order reparation thereof. The Tribunal is not, however, a civil court of general jurisdiction in matters of delict and contract. Even where they may be causally related to injury suffered by someone, prejudice and malfeasance do not give rise to a claim for damages before the Tribunal unless they can be related to a specific administrative decision which has become final and against which the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies."
Keywords:
bias; compensation; competence of tribunal; contract; decision; injury; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; limits; material damages; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1872
87th Session, 1999
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
This case is about a decision concerning termination of employment for unsatisfactory services.
"International officials have the right to be informed, from the beginning of the procedure, of the grounds which will serve as a basis for the administration's decision".
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1855
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 5
Extract:
The complainant appeals against the Executive Head's decision to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the organisation to grant him special leave to attend a two-day training course. "It is common ground that the decision as to whether or not to grant a staff member special leave to attend training courses is discretionary. [T]he obligations under Article 29 of the Service Regulations to facilitate training may involve different considerations when one looks at the desirability of the staff member's taking such training, and when one has regard to the effect of the staff member's absence on the functioning of the service. In the present case, the refusal of special leave was justified by the growing backlog of [work]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 29 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; decision; discretion; enforcement; organisation's interest; special leave; staff regulations and rules; training;
Judgment 1834
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant [pleads] that the decision to terminate [her appointment] was not 'initiated' by the Director-General, as Staff Rule 110.04 required. [I]n the context of the Staff Rule the word 'initiated' does not mean that the Director-General himself must be the first person in the administration to take any action at all; it simply requires that the action, when taken, be on the Director-General's behalf and with his prior approval."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF RULE 110.04
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 1829
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Any challenge to administrative decisions which were rendered with regard to the complainant after the filing of the first internal appeal but which were not the subject of further internal appeals is irreceivable: such decisions are not final, the complainant not having exhausted all existing means of resisting them as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1821
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"All comments and statements by member states were made within the context of the proper decision-making organs of the [organisation's] structure. To the extent that the complainants are attempting to show that member states tried to influence the decision through the committees or the governing body to which they belonged, it was perfectly proper for them to do so. An international organisation would not exist without its member states and the proper means for them to exert influence over an organisation they create is precisely that of debate, discussion and persuasion within the committees and governing body of the organisation itself."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive body; independence; legislative body; member state;
Judgment 1817
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member needs to know the reasons for a decision so that he can act on it, for example by challenging it or filing an appeal. A review body must also know the reasons so as to tell whether it is lawful. How ample the explanation need be will turn on circumstances. It may be just a reference, express or implied, to some other document that does give the why and wherefore. If little or no explanation has yet been forthcoming, the omission may be repaired in the course of appeal proceedings, provided that the staff member is given his full say."
Keywords:
case pending; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; right of appeal; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
