General decision (33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: General decision
Total judgments found: 148
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4075
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to amend the methodology used for the calculation of the tax equalization payments made to eligible staff members.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see, for example, Judgments 3427, under 31, 4028, under 3, 3628, under 4, and 3291, under 8). It is clear that the decision to amend the calculation of the tax equalization payments is a decision of general application that would necessarily require implementation through an individual decision to have any effect on a staff member. It follows that the decision was not open to challenge by the complainant until the new methodology was applied to calculate the amount of the tax equalization payment due to her for a particular year. This was not the case at the time the complainant submitted her Request for Resolution. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints “alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment [...] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Administration’s [...] decision was a decision of general application and was not applied to the complainant through an individual decision, the complaint is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence and is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3427, 3628, 4028
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; tax; tax equalization;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision; individual decision; member state; tax; tax equalization;
Judgment 4028
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
general decision;
Considerations 3, 5, 6
Extract:
The complainants request the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10. However, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3736, under 3, “according to the case law, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged (see Judgment 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein)”. In these circumstances, the claims seeking the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10 are irreceivable and must be dismissed. [...]
Since the claims seeking the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10 must be dismissed, as stated in consideration 3 above, the same applies to the claims directed against the Secretary-General’s final decision insofar as it concerns the decisions of 23 July 2014 on the requests for review that were directed solely against the aforementioned service order.
Ms F. has not challenged any individual decision implementing Service Order No. 14/10. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable.
However, Ms D. and Mr D. submitted requests for review of their pay slips reflecting an increase in the deduction for health insurance. Ms D. submitted a further request for review of a calculation of reimbursements of health-related expenses which showed that a deductible had been applied. These decisions are individual decisions implementing Service Order No. 14/10 which, as stated above, are open to appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4016
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Eurocontrol’s objections to receivability are unfounded. The complainant was directly and immediately adversely affected by the Director General’s decision that did not allow him to remain in service beyond the age of 55, as he had requested. The legal basis of the Director General’s impugned decision that adversely affected the complainant was paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE, which is a provision of general application. “According to th[e] case law, a complainant can impugn a decision only if it directly affects her/him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her/him, but she/he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action.” (See Judgment 3291, under 8, and the case law cited therein.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The adoption of an establishment table is a general decision which, according to the case law, cannot be impugned if it requires individual implementing decisions, in which case only the latter may be impugned (see Judgments 3736, under 3, and 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein). However, the decision not to extend the complainant’s fixed-term contract but to offer him a Project Staff contract is an individual decision implementing the amendment of the establishment table and, in support of his claims directed against that decision, the complainant is entitled to challenge the lawfulness of the said amendment, which formed the basis of the decision in question.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The adoption of an establishment table is a general decision which, according to the case law, cannot be impugned if it requires individual implementing decisions, in which case only the latter may be impugned (see Judgments 3736, under 3, and 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein). However, the decision not to extend the complainant’s fixed-term contract but to offer her a Project Staff contract is an individual decision implementing the amendment of the establishment table and, in support of her claims directed against that decision, the complainant is entitled to challenge the lawfulness of the said amendment, which formed the basis of the decision in question.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 3941
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a Circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; general decision;
Judgment 3931
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the decision to apply new salary scales in New Dehli as from 1 November 2014, which show a salary freeze for staff members already in service and a lower salary for new staff.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the present case, the complainants’ causes of action are not based on pay slips. They seek to challenge the general decision embodied in the Administrative Order of 1 October 2014 vide Dossier 2-1 New Delhi. They cannot do so. The distinction between challenging a general decision and challenging the implementation of the general decision as applied to an individual staff member is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests. It is a distinction rooted in the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal must act within the limits established by the Statute. There are many statements in the Tribunal’s case law about the nature of this jurisdiction and its limits. One example of a comparatively recent discussion of those limits and how they arise from the Statute is found in Judgment 3642, consideration 11. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3760, consideration 6: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3642, 3760
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Challenging a pay slip is an orthodox and accepted mechanism whereby an individual staff member can challenge a general decision as and when it is implemented in a way that affects or is likely to affect that individual staff member.
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As to the complainant’s right to maintain these proceedings on behalf of the staff of the Global Fund in his capacity as a member of the Staff Council, there is some support for the proposition he can do so in earlier jurisprudence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 5). However that judgment does not reflect the Tribunal’s current case law (see, for example, Judgments 3515, consideration 3, and 3642, considerations 9 to 12 and 14). The adoption of the new arrangements in relation to salary structure and grading system was a general decision requiring implementation for each staff member. That general decision cannot be challenged by an individual staff member even if that individual is a member of the staff committee unless and until the general decision is implemented. That is not to say, it cannot be challenged when implemented by challenging a payslip that reflects its implementation. A recent example concerned a salary freeze where the complainants were able to challenge the general decision by challenging its implementation in a payslip. While the general decision to freeze salaries was not immediately reflected in the payslips (the complainants’ salaries remained the same and the freeze would only operate in the future), the Tribunal was able to conclude, in that case, that the general decision as implemented in the payslips was liable to cause injury because the decision to freeze salaries would necessarily negatively impact on the salaries in due course (see Judgment 3740, consideration 11). Nonetheless, 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, Judgment 3168, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3168, 3515, 3642, 3740
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; locus standi; scale; staff representative;
Judgment 3811
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a non-active employee of the European Patent Office, impugns the Administrative Council’s rejection of his request for review of the Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 amending the provisions of the Service Regulations for permanent employees relating to sick leave and invalidity.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
While it is true that the case law does not exclude the possibility of challenging a general decision directly, it draws a distinction between, on the one hand, general decisions setting out the arrangements governing pay and other conditions of service, and, on the other hand, general decisions which do not give rise to implementing decisions and which involve matters of common concern to all staff (see, for example, Judgment 3427). Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, decision CA/D 2/15 belongs to the former category. Its individual application to the complainant was due to occur in January 2016 and he should have filed a request for management review with the President of the Office against an individual implementing decision.
The complaint is therefore clearly irreceivable as the complainant did not exhaust the internal remedies available to him. It must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3427
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; summary procedure;
Judgment 3762
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge a circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the impugned decision in the present case is an administrative decision which adversely affects the complainants and does not require any implementing measure. As the decision to amend the MBF Rules was found to be unlawful and the amendments to be of no force or effect, the impugned decision stemming from those amendments is unlawful and must be set aside.
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 3761
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge a circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]n the context of determining the receivability of the complaints, it is an administrative decision of general application. In general, this type of decision 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. In the present case, the impugned decision directly and adversely affects the complainants’ rights as it precludes the complainants’ important right to participate in the decision-making process […]. As the complaints satisfy the requirements of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
administrative decision; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 15
Extract:
As the decision of the Director-General to amend the MBF Rules was not taken in compliance with the amendment provisions in these Rules […] and, in particular, did not obtain the approval of the General Assembly of Participants, the decision was unlawful and will be set aside. It follows that the amendments to these Rules are of no force or effect. The complainants are entitled to an award of moral damages for the Organization’s complete disregard of the MBF’s statutory provisions and the resulting unlawful decision.
Keywords:
general decision; moral injury;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; general decision;
Judgment 3760
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to amend the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant relies on Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute as support for the proposition that a “complainant may plead the unlawfulness of an administrative decision affecting a class of officials”. […] Article VII, paragraph 2, serves to establish the time limit and when the time limit starts to run for filing a complaint against two types of decisions. The Tribunal has recognised that the words “a decision affecting a class of officials” might, viewed in isolation, be treated as a reference to a general decision, whether or not it affects individual rights (see Judgment 1134, under 4). However, any particular provision of the Statute must be construed having regard to the Statute as a whole. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11). The reference to “a decision affecting a class of officials” is to a decision which may have affected the rights of a number of individual officials in the same or a similar way.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1134, 3642
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 3741
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to cease treating the service differential as pensionable remuneration.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an organization has a duty to verify the lawfulness of a decision of an external authority before incorporating that decision into its own legal order (see Judgment 2420, under 11, and the case cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2420
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 3736
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the ITU’s decision to change its medical insurance scheme and to increase their premiums under this insurance scheme.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A] general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged (see Judgment 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 3671
122nd Session, 2016
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two service orders.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; general decision; staff representative;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law establishes that insofar as an official alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which she or he was a member, she or he has a cause of action which gives her or him standing to bring a complaint (see, for example, Judgment 3546, under 6). In the instant case, the complainant is a member of the Staff Council and she submits that the latter was not consulted before Service Order No. 13/03 was published. In accordance with the case law, the complainant therefore has a cause of action before the Tribunal, even though this service order constitutes a regulatory measure which may ordinarily be challenged only indirectly in the context of an appeal lodged against an individual decision based on it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3546
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 3620
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to retroactively implement the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The argument advanced by the EPO on the question of receivability is comparatively straightforward. The point made is that decision CA/D 15/12 involved the establishment of a regulatory legal framework which required implementation by the President through individual decisions. The EPO refers to a line of judgments of the Tribunal to the effect that a complainant can impugn a decision of this character only if it directly affects her or him. A general decision cannot be impugned by a staff member unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him. The EPO refers to a number of authorities including a comparatively recent judgment, Judgment 3291, under 8. The complainant seeks to answer this argument in her rejoinder by saying that she was directly and adversely affected by the decision. However she does not point to any decision implementing CA/D 15/12 directly affecting her either after the decision was made on 26 October 2012 or during the period of its retroactive operation. That decision concerned the transitional measure applicable to individuals already in receipt of an invalidity pension at the time when the new scheme came into effect on 1 January 2008. The complainant was not in the class affected by the transitional measure. Consequently, the EPO’s argument should be accepted and the complaint should be dismissed as irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3515
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, in their capacity as staff representatives, impugn the decision to pay a collective reward to permanent or contract employees in active service during 2011.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fringe benefits; general decision; joinder; staff representative;
Judgment 3494
120th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that when impugning an individual decision that concerns a staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure forming the legal basis of that decision (see Judgments 1000, under 12, 1329, under 7, 2129, under 7, or 3427, under 29)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1329, 2129, 3427
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 3466
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which challenges a rule of general application, is clearly irreceivable and is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"An official of an organisation cannot lawfully challenge before the Tribunal a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to that official (see Judgments 1852, under 3, 2822, under 6, and 2953, under 2). In the present case the complainant’s challenge to Circular No. 323 is of that character. The policy in the Circular has not been applied to the complainant notwithstanding that an adverse decision was earlier made affecting the complainant which involved an approach later embodied in the Circular. Accordingly the complaint is clearly irreceivable and should be dismissed summarily under Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2822, 2953
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3462
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, clearly irreceivable, is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; locus standi; outsourcing; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal recently had an opportunity to clarify the conditions under which an official can challenge the decision regarding the outsourcing of certain functions. The Tribunal found that it followed from Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute that an official may challenge before the Tribunal the outsourcing of certain tasks only to the extent that such outsourcing has a direct adverse impact on the rights conferred on the official by her/his terms of appointment (see Judgment 3376, under 3). This condition is clearly not satisfied in the present case as the complainant does not even attempt to explain how the outsourcing in question or the centralization process he challenges before the Tribunal has a direct adverse effect on him or on the rights conferred upon him by his terms of appointment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3376
Keywords:
general decision; locus standi; outsourcing;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
