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 1217
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6, Summary
Extract:
The complainant pleads that the impugned decision is unlawful because the Director of Administration had no authority to take it; the Director-General himself should have signed it, he argues. The plea fails. It is plain on the evidence that the decision gave effect to the Director-General's wishes. That is born out by the complainant's putting the matter to the Director-General after he got the impugned decision and by the Director-General's making plain that the decision by the Director of Administration squared with his own views on the matter.
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; procedural flaw;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant objects to CERN's refusal to change his home from that of which he is a citizen to another country. "The original determination of the home station on recruitment and any later change are incontrovertibly at the discretion of CERN, which has to give weight to the various criteria the Staff Regulations set. For the sake of sound management [...] the organization may set guidelines on the matter. So there can be no objection to its consistent policy of determining the staff member's home, barring evidence to the contrary, in his own country and allowing later change to some other country only where some change in circumstances so warrants."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; criteria; decision; discretion; home; home leave; judicial review; nationality; organisation's interest; place of origin; refusal;
Judgment 1213
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the decision to offer him an assignment to a lower grade than he wished and without the benefit of an indefinite appointment discriminated against him insofar as four officials appointed to the same post got the higher grade. "But none of the four is in like case. Either they have served longer than he or have different qualifications or have won a competition or have a much better record of performance. He adduces no evidence to show unlawful discrimination, and his plea is dismissed because it is devoid of merit."
Keywords:
assignment; decision; definition; duration of appointment; equal treatment; grade; refusal;
Judgment 1212
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-4
Extract:
The complainant disputes the lawfulness of a decision to dismiss her while she was on probation. She alleges breach of her right to a hearing before dismissal. She relies on a rule for which there was a long line of precedents, among them Judgments 987 [...] and 1082 [...]. The rule is that a contract of employment creates a relationship of trust and that lays on the organization a duty to inform the staff member of its intention of dismissing him and let him defend his interests. The organization moreover must disclose its intention before it gives notice; disclosing it just before the dismissal takes effect will not do. The Tribunal holds that CERN "utterly disregarded her right to be given a prior hearing so that she might comment in detail on the reasons why she was being dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 987, 1082
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; due process; organisation's duties; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 1205
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complaint is irreceivable because the decision impugned is not a final one: the complainant has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress, in breach of the requirement in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1203
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The complainants went on strike and the organisation sent them an "open letter" and individual letters drawing their attention to their obligations under the rules. Those are the letters they impugn. According to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute what a complainant is required to impugn is a "decision". "As was held in Judgment 112, a plea to quash may be directed only against a decision, that is, 'an act deciding a question in a specific case'. And in Judgment 532 the Tribunal construed the term to mean 'any action by an officer of the organisation that has a legal effect'. In sum, a decision is any act by the defendant organisation that has an effect on an official's rights and obligations." In this case "the Tribunal finds nothing in either the individual letters or the open one that it may properly construe as a 'decision' within the above definition."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 112, 532
Keywords:
absence of final decision; application for quashing; case law; cause of action; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1188
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"An item that formed part of the internal appeal proceedings should be at the Tribunal's disposal since it cannot otherwise appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw. Further submissions are therefore required to complete the case records."
Keywords:
decision; disclosure of evidence; flaw; further submissions; interlocutory order; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; report;
Judgment 1185
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The complainant argues that the impugned decision was ultra vires. The organization says that it was at the Director-General's instructions that the leader of the personnel division notified the decision to the complainant and that as a matter of good faith any decision on personnel management should be deemed to have been taken by the competent authority. The organization argues that the leader of the personnel division enjoyed an implied delegation of authority. "Such a broad statement of principle is unsound. [...] There is no telling [...] who actually made the decision in this case. The text cites no delegation of authority to sign; the only reference to the decision is impersonal and raises no presumption whatever of such delegation."
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; presumption;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent a decision to grant an appointment, even though it is a matter of discretion, may be set aside, and one flaw that will be fatal is that it was taken without authority."
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 1184
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1185, considerations 2 and 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; presumption;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1185, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1185
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant has brought two similar complaints challenging [the same] decision. [...] He explains that since the time limit for answering his internal appeal ran out [...] he inferred rejection and filed a complaint. He then left on holiday and not until he got back - by which time his first complaint had already been filed - did he receive the letter of rejection. So it was only by way of precaution that he filed the second complaint, within the time limit, against that express decision. In the circumstances the two complaints are receivable and may be joined."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1172
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the decision was ultra vires and, that being so, there is no time bar. He is mistaken. Lack of authority may be a reason for quashing a decision, but is not a reason for treating it as null and void. Provided that a text purports to be a decision, whoever may have taken it, it is challengeable in accordance with the set procedure."
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; procedure before the tribunal; time bar;
Judgment 1167
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"All that is needed for [an] appeal to be receivable is that the impugned decision be clearly identified and the pleas set out.
Keywords:
condition; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1166
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The organization contends that the complaint is irreceivable. In its submission the complainant has no locus standi because he was not an official of CERN, had no relationship of employment with it, did not work for it and was subject to its rules only to a strictly limited extent. [...] In accordance with the terms of his appointment and [the relevant] Staff Rules the complainant was [...] free to [...] lodge a complaint as a member of CERN's staff. [...] But the complaint is irreceivable for another reason [...] the decision he impugns is irrelevant to his contract with CERN".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; decision; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 1151
72nd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, a decision to appoint or promote a staff member, even though it is a matter of discretion, may be set aside, and one flaw that will be fatal is that it was taken without authority."
Keywords:
appointment; case law; competence; decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
Having submitted a claim for the refund of the costs of an item, the complainant first received a statement from the Sickness Fund which alluded to "non-refundable items". Only later did a note indicate which items were being refused. Eurocontrol contends that the time limit ran from the date at which she got the original statement from the Fund, the later note having merely confirmed the earlier decision. "The argument fails. The cryptic allusion in the statement to 'non-refundable items' did not suffice to tell the complainant just what she was being refused. The 'act adversely affecting' her - to quote the Regulations - did not become specific until she got the [note] and so that is the date at which the time limit for her internal appeal began. [...] She acted in time."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; health insurance; medical expenses; refund; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1139
72nd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant seeks an order from the Tribunal determining the method of granting sums to her each year to cover the cost of future sea-water therapy. That goes beyond the Tribunal's competence: what the Tribunal is competent to do is to review each decision that is impugned and determine whether it should or should not be upheld."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision;
Judgment 1131
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not review a policy set by the General Conference, but it does review individual decisions taken to give effect to such policy".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision; general decision; individual decision; judicial review; legislative body;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The answer to [the complainant's] claim to moral damages is that such a claim will not lie just because the decision was unlawful. In this case the purpose of the impugned decision [to abolish his post for budgetary reasons] was quite proper and there was nothing demeaning about it."
Keywords:
condition; decision; flaw; moral injury;
Consideration 2
Extract:
In keeping with a resolution adopted by the General Conference in response to budgetary constraints UNESCO had to make staff cuts. "According to the definition of its competence in its Statute, the Tribunal will not review the policy followed by the Director-General in furtherance of the Conference's decision. It will, however, consider whether there was any flaw in the Director-General's exercise of his authority in an individual case."
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; decision; enforcement; executive head; general decision; individual decision; judicial review; legislative body;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complaint was filed on the ninetieth day after the date of notification of the impugned decision, it is receivable in keeping with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Rules of court and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless filed within ninety days of the date of notification of the impugned decision, and Article 6(3) of the Rules of Court says that the 'date of despatch' of the complaint shall alone be taken into account." The complainant got notification of the impugned decision on 7 March 1990. Having waited until 6 June 1990 to post his complaint, he ran over the time limit by one day: the complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1091
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appeal against delays in the procedure to regrade his post was rejected by a decision of 10 October 1989. The decision was confirmed in a memorandum of 4 December 1989. The time limit for appeal to the Tribunal ran from 10 October. The complaint having been filed on 2 March 1990 it is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1052
69th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant got word of the decision not to renew his contract before receiving formal notification. "The only date that matters for the purpose of reckoning the time limit in [Article] VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute] is the date of formal notification of the final decision in writing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
