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 275
36th Session, 1976
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the decisions of the Director-General were not promotions but reclassifications following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations. These reclassifications "having been delayed for reasons for which the staff members are not responsible should be put into effect at the date on which the complainants took up their duties but, like the Staff Regulations themselves, not before 1 January 1971".
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; date; decision; delay; effective date; enforcement; post classification; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 274
36th Session, 1976
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
According to the organization, the memorandum in question signified the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But the memorandum was written "in the language of conclusions and not of allegations; it is impossible to argue that the writer of a letter which says that if the misconduct is repeated the offender may be dismissed, retains an open mind about whether or not misconduct had occurred. [...] The language of this memorandum disqualifies the Director-General from administering either a censure or a reprimand."
Keywords:
censure; consequence; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; reprimand;
Judgment 259
35th Session, 1975
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision in question, which merely upheld an earlier decision, could "not give rise to new time limits for the lodging of an appeal by the complainant."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; internal appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Considerations
Extract:
Under the applicable provision, the complainant had a period of six weeks in which to appeal against the decision which he regarded as detrimental. "No appeal having been lodged within that period, the decision had [...] become final [...] when the complainant asked for review of his case. The Secretary-General and subsequently the Appeal Board therefore acted lawfully in dismissing the request on that ground." No exceptional circumstances warranted a derogation from the prescribed time limits.
Keywords:
decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 256
34th Session, 1975
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The contested act [the issue of an attestation to a third party] is a decision in the true sense of the term. "[T]here is no need for the impugned decision itself to pronounce on the validity of an earlier decision. Otherwise an appeals body could never be called upon to determine the lawfulness of any act other than a decision, and that would run counter to commonly held opinion. It is therefore immaterial in the present case whether or not the issue of an attestation may be regarded as a decision."
Keywords:
communication to third party; criteria; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 249
34th Session, 1975
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant "did not appeal to the Tribunal against either decision within the statutory time limits. The decisions have therefore become final and are no longer open to appeal unless the Secretary-General exercises his power to reopen the case."
Keywords:
case reopened; decision; exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 244
33rd Session, 1974
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he complainant did not object to the terms of [his appointments, which gave him local status,] at any time before or during their period of validity. It was only after the appointments had expired that he maintained that Geneva could not lawfully be stated to be his home. It was therefore no longer open to him to contest the terms of appointment, which had become final."
Keywords:
contract; decision; local status; non-local status; receivability of the complaint; residence; terms of appointment; time bar;
Judgment 238
33rd Session, 1974
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The impugned decisions relate to two different competitions and are contested on different grounds, although "each of them affects the complainant's career in a very similar way. The complainant may therefore refer them to the Tribunal in one and the same complaint."
Keywords:
appointment; career; competition; consequence; decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 236
32nd Session, 1974
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complaint was filed on 30 March. To be receivable it must impugn a decision notified to complainant on a date not before 30 December 1972. The decision of 17 November 1972 was the decision to transfer the complainant. "The complaint against it is clearly out of time."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 221
31st Session, 1973
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"In the course of proceedings that lead to a final decision various claims and arguments may be put forward and resisted; except insofar as they form part of the final decision the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon them."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; decision; elements; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A decision impugned is the foundation of the Tribunal's competence under its Statute; and if none is impugned, it has no competence."
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; decision; iloat statute; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 220
31st Session, 1973
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[T]he competence of the Tribunal to review the legality of the decisions taken by the Director-General within his discretionary powers is restricted to ascertaining whether the decision impugned is based on incorrect facts or an error of law and whether it constitutes a misuse of authority."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; judicial review;
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant had never availed himself of the opportunity which was available to him under a former provision to transfer part of his remuneration. Yet "[...] he had a direct and personal interest in seeking the quashing of a decision which deprived him of that possibility."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; cause of action; decision; injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 209
30th Session, 1973
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decisions taken by the executive authorities of the organisation in application of the resolution of its legislative body were explicitly approved by the latter and may not now be contested in law.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision; enforcement; executive body; international instrument;
Judgment 207
30th Session, 1973
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Director-General adopted the recommendation of the internal appeals body; neither he nor the appeals body was bound by the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee "and he could lawfully impose a penalty more severe than had been recommended by those bodies."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; enforcement; executive head; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 196
29th Session, 1972
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The appeal addressed to the Director-General was dismissed on 15 April. Whatever the date of the impugned decision, "the complainant could properly file an appeal as from 15 April [...] and consequently the claims he submitted to the Appeals Board on 27 April [...] were receivable. [H]ence the argument that the appeal was irreceivable affords no grounds for contending that the internal means of resisting the decision were not exhausted."
Keywords:
date; decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 186
27th Session, 1971
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Under the applicable provisions, "the period within which an appeal must be submitted against any administrative decision affecting [...] officials [of the organization] starts to run from the date of notification of the decision to the persons concerned." The rejection of the appeal for being time-barred is not flawed.
Keywords:
date; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar;
Judgment 165
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in March 1952, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 164
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in May 1951, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 149
23rd Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The appeals body which heard the persons closely concerned with the appeal, found that the increase had been withheld out of personal prejudice. Under the applicable provision, the body was competent "to find the existence of prejudice. the Director-General therefore committed an error of law in stating [...] that he could not endorse the recommendation of the Appeals Committee on this point simply on the ground that the committee was not competent to make such a recommendation."
Keywords:
bias; competence; decision; enforcement; executive head; flaw; grounds; increment withheld; internal appeals body; recommendation; refusal; report; salary; step;
Judgment 135
22nd Session, 1969
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The refusal to grant a permanent post to the complainant was quashed because of legal error. The organisation again rejected the complainant's application. The complainant's claim for damages "is well founded only insofar as it rests on the prejudice arising out of the illegal decision [...] which lapsed on [...] which date the decision legally rejecting his application for a permanent post was issued." The Tribunal awards the complainant a sum in compensation, in particular, for the "prejudice caused to complainant by the state of uncertainty in which he found himself as a result of the rescinded decision."
Keywords:
amount; confirmatory decision; decision; flaw; injury; mistake of law; moral injury; refusal; titularization;
Judgment 123
20th Session, 1968
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
One copy of the impugned decision arrived at the usual home address of the complainant on 27 June; a second copy arrived at his business address on 28 June. "[B]y sending two copies of its decision the [organisation] sought to ensure that at least one of them would reach its destination. It therefore admitted that if one copy were to go a stray the time limit of 90 days would run from the date of receipt of the second." The complainant might have kept only one of the two copies, that which arrived on 28 June. "[I]t is consonant with the rules of good faith to hold that the time limit began to run from 28 June, and [...] that the complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 122
20th Session, 1968
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision not to renew his contract was notified to the complainant on 6 March and again on 15 June following his request for a review. On 25 June the complainant addressed a request to the organisation based on new arguments and directed to securing reconsideration of his case. Following this request the Director-General communicated to the complainant on 14 August a decision definitely confirming the previous decision, but in part on new grounds. The time limit for the filing of the complaint began to run only from the date of the notification of the decision of 14 August.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; confirmatory decision; contract; date; date of notification; decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; 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 >
|
